The recognition heuristic in memory‐based inference: is recognition a non‐compensatory cue?

The recognition heuristic makes the strong claim that probabilistic inferences in which a recognized object is compared to an unrecognized one are made solely on the basis of whether the objects are recognized or not, ignoring all other available cues. This claim has been seriously challenged by a number of studies that have shown a clear effect of additional cue knowledge. In most of these studies, either recognition knowledge was acquired during the experiment, and/or additional cues were provided to participants. However, the recognition heuristic is more likely to be a tool for exploiting natural (rather than induced) recognition when inferences have to be made from memory. In our study on natural recognition and inferences from memory, around 85% of the inferences followed recognition information even when participants had learned three cues that contradicted recognition and when some of the contradictory cues were deemed more valid than recognition. Nevertheless, there were strong individual differences in the use of recognition. Whereas about half of the participants chose the recognized object regardless of the number of conflicting cues—suggestive of the hypothesized noncompensatory processing of recognition—the remaining participants were influenced by the additional knowledge. The former group of participants also tended to give higher estimates of recognition's validity. In addition, we found that the use of recognition for an inference may be affected by whether additional cue knowledge has been learned outside or within the experimental setting. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

What do We Know about Family Interventions for Psychosis at the Process Level? A Systematic Review

The evidence regarding effectiveness of family interventions for psychosis (FIP) is strong and consistent. However, there is a gap in the research on the process of these interventions, and little is known about their active ingredients. This review aims to identify the active ingredients of FIP. We conducted a systematic literature review, focusing on qualitative research, and analyzed 22 papers in total. We found a single study comprehensively exploring the process of FIP. All other studies focused on particular aspects of process‐related variables. The key elements of FIP seem to be the so‐called “common therapeutic factors”, followed by education about the illness and coping skills training. This review supports the value of a stepped model of intervention according to the needs of the families. However, the evidence reviewed also reveals a gap in the research findings based on the limited research available. FIP are complex, psychosocial interventions with multiple components, and more intensive, qualitative research is needed to establish linkages between process and outcome.