Hazardous Heuristics

  • Sunstein C
  • Gilovich T
  • Griffin D
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
69Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

New work on heuristics and biases has explored the role of emotions and affect; the idea of “dual processing”; the place of heuristics and biases outside of the laboratory; and the implications of heuristics and biases for policy and law. This review-essay focuses on certain aspects of Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, edited by Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, and Daniel Kahneman. An understanding of heuristics and biases casts light on many issues in law, involving jury awards, risk regulation, and political economy in general. Some attention is given to the possibility of “moral heuristics”—rules of thumb, for purposes of morality, that generally work well but that also systematically misfire.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sunstein, C. R., Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. W., & Kahneman, D. (2003). Hazardous Heuristics. The University of Chicago Law Review, 70(2), 751. https://doi.org/10.2307/1600596

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free