Take-the-best in expert-novice decision strategies for residential burglary

Understanding expertise in burglars: From pre-conscious scanning to action and beyond

“…In some samples, security issues are reported as the least problematic category for the burglar (Hearndon & Magill, 2004;Palmer, Holmes & Hollin, 2002; and mentioned least often (Nee & Meenaghan, 2006). In others, security issues are reportedly given most priority (Cromwell et al, 1991;Garcia-Retamero & Dhami, 2009). Differences in these preferences amongst samples could be explained by Nee and Taylor's (2000) finding that, when actually presented with visual targets, it is the combination of cues that matters rather than the types, and points to the dynamic nature of more naturalistic decision-making.…”

“…Features appraised include the property's decor and items of value that can be seen both inside and within its garden (size, decor, furniture), and the vehicles parked outside or in the driveway. This appraisal, coupled with access considerations, such as whether the property is detached or semi-detached allowing access at the sides and back (allowing further appraisal of the property and greater opportunities to both enter and escape) and/or increased cover by vegetation or out-buildings (Bernasco & Nieuwbeerta, 2005;Garcia-Retamero & Dhami, 2009;Nee & Taylor, 2000), might render the target highly sought after. Brown and Altman (1981), supported more recently by Clare, Fernandez and Morgan (2009), noted that non-burgled homes in the vicinity of burgled ones had more 'symbolic' barriers (e.g.…”

Review of expertise and its general implications for correctional psychology and criminology

“…Over the last decade or so, a number of authors in the fields of forensic psychology, criminology and allied disciplines have alluded to (explicitly or otherwise) a distinct form of decision-making utilized by the offender at several points along this decision chain. More recently referred to explicitly as expertise in criminal decision-making (Bourke, Ward, & Rose, 2012;Garcia-Retamero & Dhami, 2009;Nee & Meenaghan, 2006;Topalli, 2005;Ward, 2000;Wright & Decker, 1994Wright, Logie, & Decker, 1995) numerous other authors have described these processes using related concepts such as bounded rationality and cognitive templates or scripts (Bennett & Brookman, 2010;Brantingham & Brantingham, 1993;Copes & Vieraitis, 2009;Leclerc & Wortley, 2014;Shover & Honaker, 1992;Cherbonneau & Copes, 2006;Opp, 1997;Cornish & Clarke, 1986;Wright & Decker, 1997). The aim of this special issue therefore is to draw together strands of an emerging field at this important time in its development.…”

Satisficing in split-second decision making is characterized by strategic cue discounting.

“…First, in order to implement the take-the-best approach, it is crucial for the decision maker to be confident in their knowledge of the exact rankings of cue validities; in fact, the majority of previous work on this heuristic has provided participants with explicit cue validities on each trial (e.g., Bröder, 2000Bröder, , 2003Dieckmann & Rieskamp, 2007;Payne et al, 1988Payne et al, , 1996Rieskamp & Hoffrage, 2008;Rieskamp & Otto, 2006). Moreover, it has been shown that experts who have better knowledge of cue validities than novices are more likely to adopt the take-the-best heuristic (Garcia-Retamero & Dhami, 2009;Pachur & Marinello, 2013). By contrast, participants in our study were not provided with explicit cue weights and had to infer the correct cue ranking through trial-and-error learning, likely rendering them less confident about the exact rankings.…”