@article{Daviter2017,
  author    = {Daviter, Falk},
  title     = {Coping, taming or solving},
  series = {Policy studies},
  volume    = {38},
  journal   = {Policy studies},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {0144-2872},
  doi       = {10.1080/01442872.2017.1384543},
  pages     = {571 -- 588},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {One of the truisms of policy analysis is that policy problems are rarely solved. As an ever-increasing number of policy issues are identified as an inherently ill-structured and intractable type of wicked problem, the question of what policy analysis sets out to accomplish has emerged as more central than ever. If solving wicked problems is beyond reach, research on wicked problems needs to provide a clearer understanding of the alternatives. The article identifies and explicates three distinguishable strategies of problem governance: coping, taming and solving. It shows that their intellectual premises and practical implications clearly contrast in core respects. The article argues that none of the identified strategies of problem governance is invariably more suitable for dealing with wicked problems. Rather than advocate for some universally applicable approach to the governance of wicked problems, the article asks under what conditions different ways of governing wicked problems are analytically reasonable and normatively justified. It concludes that a more systematic assessment of alternative approaches of problem governance requires a reorientation of the debate away from the conception of wicked problems as a singular type toward the more focused analysis of different dimensions of problem wickedness.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ShakiPinhasFischer2017,
  author    = {Shaki, Samuel and Pinhas, Michal and Fischer, Martin H.},
  title     = {Heuristics and biases in mental arithmetic},
  series = {Thinking \& Reasoning},
  volume    = {24},
  journal   = {Thinking \& Reasoning},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {1354-6783},
  doi       = {10.1080/13546783.2017.1348987},
  pages     = {138 -- 156},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Mental arithmetic is characterised by a tendency to overestimate addition and to underestimate subtraction results: the operational momentum (OM) effect. Here, motivated by contentious explanations of this effect, we developed and tested an arithmetic heuristics and biases model that predicts reverse OM due to cognitive anchoring effects. Participants produced bi-directional lines with lengths corresponding to the results of arithmetic problems. In two experiments, we found regular OM with zero problems (e.g., 3+0, 3-0) but reverse OM with non-zero problems (e.g., 2+1, 4-1). In a third experiment, we tested the prediction of our model. Our results suggest the presence of at least three competing biases in mental arithmetic: a more-or-less heuristic, a sign-space association and an anchoring bias. We conclude that mental arithmetic exhibits shortcuts for decision-making similar to traditional domains of reasoning and problem-solving.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Daviter2017,
  author    = {Daviter, Falk},
  title     = {Coping, taming or solving},
  series = {Policy Studies},
  journal   = {Policy Studies},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-412684},
  pages     = {19},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {One of the truisms of policy analysis is that policy problems are rarely solved. As an ever-increasing number of policy issues are identified as an inherently ill-structured and intractable type of wicked problem, the question of what policy analysis sets out to accomplish has emerged as more central than ever. If solving wicked problems is beyond reach, research on wicked problems needs to provide a clearer understanding of the alternatives. The article identifies and explicates three distinguishable strategies of problem governance: coping, taming and solving. It shows that their intellectual premises and practical implications clearly contrast in core respects. The article argues that none of the identified strategies of problem governance is invariably more suitable for dealing with wicked problems. Rather than advocate for some universally applicable approach to the governance of wicked problems, the article asks under what conditions different ways of governing wicked problems are analytically reasonable and normatively justified. It concludes that a more systematic assessment of alternative approaches of problem governance requires a reorientation of the debate away from the conception of wicked problems as a singular type toward the more focused analysis of different dimensions of problem wickedness.},
  language  = {en}
}