This blog has existed for two years. It includes nearly 150 posts. I should note that I remain the only one to have set eyes on a few of them. My most popular post What has Brunswik’s Lens Taught? has only 625 views. Clearly, the blog is all about me. My inability to recall what I have written in the past became obvious even to me recently. My post Parameter P -Slowness Factor (6 views)? is about a month old. My post Parallel Constraint Satisfaction- Plugging in the some of the Numbers (10 views) is a little more than a year old. While writing the Parameter P post the older post did not cross, enter, or even come close to my mind. Interestingly, they seem to concern exactly the same thing, but at different stages. This post will look at that. As for future posts, maybe it is time to look at the existing posts as source material and try to integrate the most significant ideas.
The two figures to the left come from Glockner and Jekel (They are the common authors, but not the only authors). In the top figure from a 2014 paper, weight is the validity minus .5 all to the p power, while in the bottom figure from a 2012 paper, the same thing is all to the k power. k and p are indeed the same thing: the individual sensitivity to differences between validities. Somehow Glockner and Jekel decided to change the designation. The overall explanation is quite similar and consistent. Glockner when using the k parameter suggested that a k=2 yields choices that approximate the naive Bayes solution. Having changed to Parameter P, he suggests that 1.9 provides the closest to the naive Bayes solution in a four cue environment.
According to PCS individuals do not use qualitatively different heuristics as assumed by the adaptive toolbox approach but differ in how sensitive they are to differences in cue validities. They merely capture individual differences in cue perception. Glockner et al found more subjects used a k parameter of 1 than of 2. This is, of course, suboptimal. In the 2014 paper the authors again found that participants were insufficiently sensitive to differences in cue validities.
Parameter P (formerly parameter k) again seems to have the potential to help individual decision making.