Max Planck Summer Institute on Bounded Rationality
Dr Amy Rodger
Think, think again, and then keep thinking! To open the Max Planck Summer Institute, Gerd Gigerenzer issued this challenge to our cohort of early-career researchers, examining how people make decisions in uncertain environments. Over seven days and 25 sessions, my assumptions about theories of decision-making and behaviour were challenged, prompting me to think more deeply about my research.
For decades, psychology has been shaped by the notion that we have two decision-making systems: a swift, error-prone one and a slower, more rational one. This view portrays simple heuristics as biased and flawed. However, Gigerenzer put forward a different perspective: "ecological rationality." Rather than asking whether our decision-making is rational, ecological rationality poses a more practical question: what heuristics do we rely on in our daily decision-making, and when do they prove useful?
Gigerenzer presented fascinating examples where simple heuristics outperform complex models in uncertain environments. For instance, when investing, spreading your money evenly across all options (the "1/N rule") often yields results that are just as good as those of more advanced models. Similarly, simple algorithms using recency heuristics can forecast flu outbreaks more accurately than Google Flu Trends' big-data approach.
But Gigerenzer didn't view our mental shortcuts as flaws; instead, he suggested they're clever adaptations to an uncertain world, and that we have a flexible "adaptive toolbox" of strategies that excel in specific contexts. This made me think about my research into online safety and digital behaviour, where the world is inherently unpredictable. For instance, what determines when playful banter between players turns into online hate and harassment? As we rush towards big data and complex AI models in search of answers, we might overlook the fact that simple methods, tailored to specific settings, can be more effective.
Other speakers stressed the importance of empowerment in addressing societal issues. Ralph Hertwig advocated for "boosting" competencies rather than just nudging behaviour. His emphasis on creating active, competent citizens sparked some questions for my own work: What competencies beyond nudges and penalties do players actually need? How can we effectively build these competencies into their player journeys from onboarding to gameplay?
Amy Orben explored how to conduct rigorous science in our fast-changing digital landscape. Her discussion of "fast science", where researchers might lower evidence standards to keep pace with technological change, highlighted a critical tension in my field. How do we balance the urgency of addressing digital harms in practice with the need for robust scientific evidence?
Presenting my research on player safety interventions allowed me to share these ideas with fellow researchers and explore how ecological rationality might inform approaches to online harm. The feedback was invaluable, particularly discussions about how gaming studios could move beyond reactive moderation systems toward proactive competency-building approaches.
As Gigerenzer challenged us, I'm still contemplating how to apply my learning to research on human decision-making and behaviour in the digital world. The institute reminded me that profound insights often come from questioning assumptions about how the mind works and what drives behaviour.
Amy Rodger is a Research Fellow at Behavioural Research UK (BR-UK) at the University of Edinburgh, where she applies behavioural science to address major societal challenges such as online safety. Her research focuses on how to develop evidence-based interventions for safer digital environments, with particular interest in player safety in gaming spaces. Amy completed her PhD at the University of Glasgow and is passionate about methodology, meta-science, and game-based behaviour interventions. You can find her on LinkedIn at Amy Rodger.