Testing the boundary conditions of biases resulting from heuristic processes

In the psychological examination of human judgment and decision making, it is not uncommon to infer real-world behavior from hypothetical scenarios. Behavior in hypothetical tasks commonly suggests that people utilize simple rules of thumb that, while useful, can lead to systematic errors. The present dissertation work examines the validity of these scenarios by evaluating three research programs which have used hypothetical situations to demonstrate human irrationality: risky choice framing, duration neglect, and anchoring. Findings suggest that while hypothetical scenarios are useful, they can overstate or understate the impact of potential biases resulting from judgmental heuristics. Furthermore, reliance on such scenarios can lead to erroneous theoretical conclusions regarding psychological processes behind such behavior.