Exploring Cognitive Heuristics: Cognitive Shortcuts in Decision Making

We don’t make organize, evaluate, and make judgements from scratch. The enormous inflow of information would overwhelm a limited system. Instead, we build in preset categories, crude rules of thumb that quickly and efficiently interpret new information. These rules are referred to in psychology as cognitive heuristics.

In a 2011 paper, the authors define heuristics as a strategy that, “ignores part of the information, with the goal of making decisions more quickly, frugally, or accurately than more complex methods” (​​​Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011, p. 454). Many times decisions do not need complete analysis. We need an efficient means to process mass amounts of data and make a reasonable effective decision. Heuristics play a primary role in efficient, cognitive resource preserving decisions.

Why We Use Cognitive Heuristics

We don’t use cognitive heuristics because we are lazy but because they are necessary. Life throws too much information, too quick, for us to cognitively process and evaluate each crumb of information intercepted by our senses. Yet, information is valuable to our survival and flourishing. So we funnel all the data through quick efficient rules to assist creating reliable predictions of consequences of reactionary behaviors. We absorb data, crudely process (often unconsciously), and react.

Susan David, Ph.D., a psychologist on the faculty of Harvard Medical School, explains, “Life is just a hell of a lot easier when you don’t have to analyze every choice.” David continues, “If human beings lacked the predictive ability of heuristics…and needed to consciously process every facial expression, conversation, and piece of information anew, we’d have no time for actually living life” (David, 2016). The accuracy of our predictions and the potency of our behavioral reactions depend on the efficiency of our integrated cognitive heuristics.

Unconscious Processing and  Cognitive Heuristics

Cognitive heuristics work so fast because they process information largely beneath consciousness. We hear, see, or feel something and make a snap judgment to the deeper meaning and our appropriate response.

In many ways, the heuristic judgements are similar (if not the same) as intuition. Reasonably reliable when the heuristics are built around abundant and correctly interpreted exposures. Unfortunately, many of us form heuristics, around a paucity of experience and unreliable sources. We make life impacting choices based on a faulty system of judgement. Information processed through faulty heuristics result in erroneous conclusions and motivate harmful or misguided behavioral reactions.

Where Do Cognitive Heuristics Originate?

Cognitive shortcuts don’t materialize from nothing. They evolve from experience. We begin integrating societal, family and personal rules almost immediately.  Political views, cultural norms, and extensive lists of “good” and “bad” constantly bombard our senses, feeding bias into our developing neuronal connections.

These learnings not only influence judgement but creating distinct feeling responses. We see something, the information is processed through cognitive heuristics, and we emotionally react. Other heuristics, such as, “You feel it, it must be true,” then join the chorus strengthening the original judgment. Richard Brodie wrote that we “go through different levels of learning heuristics in your life, each building upon the previous in a kind of pyramid. Stepping from one level of the pyramid to the next requires not just learning a different subject, but jumping to a whole new manner of learning, and in fact a whole new way of looking at the world” (Brodie, 2009).

This pyramid process of learning allows for exponential growth, without starting from scratch with each new piece of information. However, when a flawed cognitive heuristic is adopted, each new level built upon the erroneous heuristic is distorted. Reid Hastie and Robyn M. Dawes explain that “these cognitive tools are acquired over a lifetime of experience.” They suggest that, “We learn these cognitive tools from trial-and-error experience, as folklore from our family or peers, and through deliberate instruction” (Hastie & Dawes, 2010).

Systematic Errors of Cognitive Heuristics

Leonard Mlodinow wrote, “In general, heuristics are useful, but just as our manner of processing optical information sometimes leads to optical illusions, so heuristics sometimes lead to systematic error” (Mlodinow, 2008). These systematic errors can be blinding. They occur when we rely on these mental shortcuts without recognizing their limitations.

Our brains are wired to seek efficiency in decision-making; however, this tendency can result in significant oversights or misinterpretations of critical information. For instance, when confronted with complex data or situations that require nuanced understanding, the use of heuristics may cause us to overlook essential details that could alter our judgments and actions. This reliance on cognitive shortcuts often leads us to form conclusions based on incomplete or distorted perceptions.

Because heuristics operate beneath consciousness, we have no clue how to recalibrate our judgments once they become entrenched in our thinking. We may cling to faulty premises because they provide comforting simplicity amid life’s uncertainties. As a result, abandoning poorly processed information becomes challenging; it requires introspection and an active effort to question our assumptions.

The implications of these misguided beliefs can be profound—impacting personal relationships and societal interactions alike. By failing to recognize the potential for error within our heuristic processes, we risk making decisions that not only spoil future opportunities but also harm others around us through biased interpretations and unjust treatment based on flawed reasoning.

Three Common Cognitive Heuristics Influencing Interpretations

​Often we think of predetermined conclusions when discussing heuristics. The underlying beliefs that propel judgements. However, a significant force behind many heuristics is the surrounding environment when information is received, priming new judgements for particular interpretations. Our focus of attention, what we are thinking about when new information is obtained, our mood, and what other people are doing at that moment, all contribute to and corrupt interpretations.

Powerful heuristics massage information to conform to currently held beliefs Since we hold conflicting beliefs, information conforms to the most prevalently held belief at the moment new information is encountered. For example if I just finished writing an article on kindness, I am more likely to give to money to the homeless man outside the store. If I just finished paying my bills, I may respond differently. Depending on our current thoughts and recent experience, we may take completely different meanings away from an event.

​Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman identified three common cognitive heuristics—anchoring, availability, and representativeness.

​​Anchoring

The anchoring heuristic is a cognitive bias that processes new information, relying too heavily on a single piece of evidence (often the first encountered) on a given topic. In anchoring, we use a single (and often unproven) sliver of data to compare and interpret new incoming information. An example of anchoring is when we our shopping for an item, perhaps patio furniture. We check the on-line price for a set we like on Wayfair. Let’s say the price tag is $799.00. A visually comparable item is discovered on Amazon for $499.00. We assume the Amazon set is a great value because we compared it to the higher priced item on Wayfair.

The Danger of Anchoring

In his informative book, Guy Harrison explains, “this bias leads us to rely so much on one past experience or one piece of information that we ignore or reject new, more, and better information that contradicts it.” Harrison then warns, “Don’t drop anchor in the muck of a past error when you could set sail for more sensible lands” (Harrison, 2013).

From the informative psychology website Decision Lab, the author furthers our understanding of anchoring this way: “When we are setting plans or making estimates about something, we interpret newer information from the reference point of our anchor, instead of seeing it objectively. This can skew our judgment, and prevent us from updating our plans or predictions as much as we should” (The Decision Lab).

The real devastation to effective thinking when we anchor all new information to a falsehood. Perhaps, a childhood religious teaching becomes the basis for all future investigations of the origins of life. Our religious anchor quickly places every grand new discovery into a category of evil. Our anchor limits learning. We experienced anchoring bias over the COVID-19 pandemic. Many people began with an anchor regarding the nature of the illness. All new information about vaccines was either vehemently rejected or blindly accepted depending on their anchoring belief.

See Anchoring Heuristic for more information on this topic

Availability

When we encounter new information, we typically jump to conclusions, relying on information stored in long-term memory. Something in the present stirs memories of past encounters, pulling information from long-term memory to make sense of the present. 

The problem is we don’t pull all associated memories or even the most relevant information. We on the information most readily available. Daniel Kahneman describes this form of associative thinking as the availability heuristic. We rely on ease of retrieval to make quick, resourceful judgments (Kahneman, 2013).

An example of this is giving more weight to recent or personally relevant events then significance evidence suggesting a different conclusion. We may conclude that current crime rates are worse than they were in the 1970’s because we read our news feed about crimes occurring this week. We can’t recall statistics from the 1970’s. 

In 1970, Gunfire murders 112 police officers. In 2021, 62 police officers were murdered by the same means. Markedly, these numbers are not oddities. 143 officers were killed by gun fire in 1971 compared to 45 officers killed in 2020 (Officer Down Memorial Page).

Giving More Weight to the Present

Yet, because of availability heuristics, we give more weight to the current year, believing crime is out of control, reaching all time heights. The good old days of the 1970’s, 80’s up to the mid 90’s experienced unprecedented crime rates. Although population has increased by more than  30% since then crimes of homicide, robbery, and burglary are still significantly lower than those earlier decades (United States Crime Rates).

I was a child during the 70’s. The world felt relatively safe. I didn’t watch the news. There was no internet. The only crime I knew of was the relatively few incidents occurring in my neighborhood. The availability heuristic impacts many decisions. When I am researching a topic on a particular aspect, I see it everywhere. I subsequently believe the behavior is more prevalent than it actually is.​

Representativeness

The representative heuristic blurs accurate interpretations through comparison. We see something or someone, we compare the person or event to a stereotype, and then assign all the ‘known’ characteristics of the comparative model onto the new person or event. Hastie and Dawes explain that the common tendency is to “make judgments and decisions about category membership based on similarity between our conception of the category and our impression of the to-be-classified object, situation, or event” (Hastie & Dawes, 2010).

This significantly relieves cognitive resources of time consuming evaluations. We judge the unknown by replacing it with the ‘known’. Many stereotypes are accurate. A mechanic working on a car can assume that the engine of this particular car possesses many of the same characteristics of other cars he or she may have worked on in the past. Thaler and Sunstein warn, “Again, biases can creep in when similarity and frequency diverge.” They continue, “use of the representativeness heuristic can cause serious misperceptions of patterns in everyday life” (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009).

Representativeness and Biases

The representative heuristic is responsible for many ugly biases and unjustified treatment. Hastie and Dawes explain the destructive nature of representative heuristics when representative categories are racial, gender, or religious groupings that “automatically evoke emotional reactions that affect our behavior toward members of the category. Once we’ve classified a person into a category with negative associations, we may not be able to help ourselves from reacting negatively to him or her” (Hastie, & Dawes, 2010).

Kahneman wrote that, “there is some truth to the stereotypes that govern judgments of representativeness, and predictions that follow this heuristic may be accurate.” He then cautions, “In other situations, the stereotypes are false and the representativeness heuristic will mislead.” Over-reliance on any time saving heuristic can blindly sabotage our lives and cruelly demean others, justifying inhumane and atrocious behaviors. Kahneman warns, “Even when the heuristic has some validity, exclusive reliance on it is associated with grave sins against statistical logic” (Kahneman, 2013).

Kahneman names two sins associated with the repetitiveness heuristic:

1. Excessive Willingness to Predict Unlikely Events

We love to predict. Consistently predicting correctly provides a notable advantage in life. Kahneman warns that predictions must be exercised with caution. ​Unlikely events can’t be predicted with any notable success. Yet, experts consistently comment, publishing predictions based on representative heuristics that miss the many complex contributing factors. Occasionally, they are right. Kahneman writes, “One sin of representativeness is an excessive willingness to predict the occurrence of unlikely (low base-rate) events” (Kahneman, 2013). Accordingly, we should closely examine unlikely events.

We can’t predict the effectiveness or danger of a vaccine from personal experience, from outlandish cries from a social internet post, or because our uncle got sick shortly after receiving a second injection. Predicting global crime rates based on our own recent victimization, leads to gross errors. Generally, we can’t draw all inclusive conclusions for large scale measurements because a personal encounter, emotional reaction, or a outlandish reports on the internet.

2. Insensitivity to Quality of Evidence

​Evidence not only can be sparse and insufficient in quantity, it also can be of low quality, allowing undetected contaminates to spoil any conclusions. We may have plenty of data but the collection may be purposely or ignorantly unrepresentative of the whole. Therefore, any conclusions drawn from the data is subject to error. When our thoughts and behaviors rely on representative heuristics, leaning on statistical data that is biased, we incorporate biases in our conclusions.

We must wisely examine the quality of evidence that we allow to sort and process new experience. Unless we skeptically step back, we unconsciously “process the information available as if it were true.” Kahneman teaches that whenever we “have doubts about the quality of the evidence: let your judgments of probability stay close to the base rate” (Kahneman, 2013).

Mitigating Harmful Cognitive Heuristics

Just because heuristics occur beneath the veil of unconsciousness does not mean we must be hapless victims to their impact. While these mental shortcuts often serve a practical purpose by allowing us to make quick decisions in an information-saturated world, they can also lead us astray if not critically examined.

By recognizing that our cognitive processes are susceptible to bias, we can take proactive steps to mitigate the damage caused by shortsighted heuristics. This approach begins with awareness—acknowledging that our judgments may not always reflect reality and understanding the circumstances under which these biases tend to arise.

When judgments spontaneously seep into our psyche, it is essential not to merely praise the rush of insight as evidence of our intuitive genius. Instead, we should cultivate a practice of pausing before making conclusions based on initial impressions or feelings. This pause allows us time for reflection: reexamining the evidence at hand and considering its sources critically. Are we relying too heavily on anecdotal experiences or emotional responses?

When we incorporate more diverse information and perspectives into decision-making processes, we create a richer context for evaluating situations rather than falling prey to simplistic reasoning driven by heuristics. It sounds easy. However, it is not. We operate of the guise of being intelligent and logical thinkers. But this illusion is just another creation of our ego dominated brain.

A reflective practice helps us recognize when our emotional tail is wagging our rational dog—when emotional reactions overshadow logical reasoning. Our instinctual responses can swiftly dominate thought processes, leading us down paths influenced more by feelings than facts. In doing so, we may find ourselves justifying decisions that feel comfortable but lack sound rationale—satisfying any incongruence and discomfort stemming from cognitive dissonance in ways that further entrench faulty beliefs.

When we actively engage with thoughts and emotions, seeking out alternative viewpoints or additional data points before jumping to a comforting or convenient conclusion, we empower ourselves to make informed choices grounded in reason rather than instinct alone—a crucial step toward better decision-making in both personal and professional contexts.

Using Cognitive Heuristics to Your Advantage

Cognitive heuristics are a given. They benefit our lives and improve our responses to the continually onslaught of information flowing in our environment. We can harness their power by creating environments that support changes we wish to make. We can feed our mind with positive mantras, gentle reminders, and lifting examples.

This process of placing uplifting information into the forefront of our minds primes representative and availability heuristics to draw upon rational data, leading to healthier conclusions. In psychology, we call this priming.

Kyra Bobinet, M.D., explains:

“​Priming is the phenomenon in which something in our environment triggers fast-brain shortcuts, or heuristics, stored within our implicit memory. When we are exposed to certain cues, we behave in certain predictable ways” (Bobinet, 2019).

Associated Concepts

• Cognitive Biases: These are systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment. Heuristics can lead to biases, which affect the decisions and judgments that individuals make.
• Affective Forecasting: This is the psychological concept of estimating our future emotional state. While it helps understand human behavior and decision-making, its accuracy is often compromised by factors like impact bias, adaptation, inaccurate imagining, and current emotions.
• Problem-Solving: Heuristics simplify the cognitive load required to solve problems by providing a pragmatic approach that is usually effective, if not always perfectly accurate.
• Dual-Process Theories: These theories, such as Daniel Kahneman’s model, distinguish between two types of thinking: fast, automatic, intuitive (System 1) and slower, more deliberate, and logical (System 2). Heuristics are typically associated with System 1.
• Bounded Rationality: This concept, introduced by Herbert Simon, suggests that individuals are limited in their cognitive resources and thus use heuristics to make decisions within these constraints.
• Attribute Substitution: When faced with a complex question, people may substitute it with a simpler one. For example, instead of evaluating all aspects of a decision, they might focus on one easily accessible feature.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

In summary, cognitive heuristics are indispensable mental shortcuts that allow us to navigate the vast sea of information and decisions we encounter daily. While they streamline our thought processes and enable quick decision-making, it’s crucial to recognize that they can also lead to cognitive biases and errors in judgment. As we continue to unravel the intricacies of the human mind, understanding heuristics is not just about acknowledging our limitations but also appreciating our brain’s remarkable ability to adapt and simplify complexity.

The study of cognitive heuristics is a testament to the ingenuity of human cognition, reflecting both our evolutionary heritage and the sophisticated architecture of our brains. By bringing awareness to these automatic processes, we empower ourselves to make more informed and reflective choices. As we close this discussion on cognitive heuristics, let us embrace the dual nature of our thinking—both its efficiency and its fallibility—as we strive for greater self-awareness and improved decision-making in our personal and professional lives.

Last Update: January 18, 2026

References:

Bobinet, K. (2019). Behavior Design at Home. Experience Life. Published: 4-19-2016; Accessed: 2-2-2022. Website: https://experiencelife.lifetime.life/article/behavior-design-at-home/
(Return to Main Text)

Brodie, Richard (2009). Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme. Hay House Inc. ISBN-10: 1401924689
(Return to Main Text)

David, Susan (2016). Emotional Agility: Get Unstuck, Embrace Change, and Thrive in Work and Life. Avery; First Edition. ISBN-10: 1592409490
(Return to Main Text)

​​​Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic Decision Making. Annual Review Of Psychology, 62, 451-482. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346
(Return to Main Text)

Harrison, Guy (2013). Think: Why You Should Question Everything. Simon & Schuster; Illustrated edition. ISBN-13: 9781616148089
(Return to Main Text)

Hastie, Reid; Dawes, Robyn M. (2010). ‎Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. SAGE Publications, Inc; Second edition. ISBN-10: 1412959039; APA Record: 2010-02957-000
(Return to Main Text)

Kahneman, Daniel (2013). Thinking Fast; Thinking Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 1st edition. ISBN-10: 0374533555; APA Record: 2011-26535-000
(Return to Main Text)

Mlodinow, Leonard (2008). The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives. Vintage. ISBN-10: 0307275175; APA Record: 2009-06057-000
(Return to Main Text)

Thaler, Richard H., Sunstein, Cass R. (2009). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. Yale University Press; Revised & Expanded edition. ISBN-13: 9780300262285; APA Record: 2008-03730-000
(Return to Main Text)