Constraining ACT-R Models of Decision Strategies: An Experimental Paradigm

It has been repeatedly debated which strategies people rely on in inference. These debates have been difficult to resolve, partially because hypotheses about the decision processes assumed by these strategies have typically been formulated qualitatively, making it hard to test precise quantitative predictions about response times and other behavioral data. One way to increase the precision of strategies is to implement them in cognitive architectures such as ACT-R. Often, however, a given strategy can be implemented in several ways, with each implementation yielding different behavioral predictions. We present and report a study with an experimental paradigm that can help to identify the correct implementations of classic compensatory and non-compensatory strategies such as the take-the-best and tallying heuristics, and the weighted-linear model