cog approach: thinking & decision making

Question 1

thinking: definition

Answer 1

when we pay attention to the stimuli around us, we engage in a process known as thinking.

thinking is the process of using knowledge and information to make plans, interpret the world, and make predictions about the world in general.

there are several components of thinking - these include problem-solving, creativity, reasoning, and decision making.

Question 2

decision - making: definition

Answer 2

decision making is defined as the process of identifying and choosing alternatives based on the values and preferences of the decision-maker.

Question 3

intro to the Dual Process Model of thinking and decision-making

Answer 3

two basic modes of thinking - refer to as “System 1” and “System 2. system 1 thinking is our brains’ fast, automatic, unconscious, and emotional response to situations and stimuli. system 2 thinking is the slow, effortful, and logical mode in which our brains operate when solving more complicated problems.

according to the Dual Process Model, when we make a decision, we either use system 1 or system 2 thinking. system 1 will reach a quick conclusion and then system 2 will go into further analysis to hopefully reach a more correct conclusion. system 1 thinking is quick and relies on past experience or mental shortcuts, called heuristics, this system is fast. system 2 thinking is more rational, using logic and reasoning, but however is slow.

Question 4

studies for system 1 & system 2?

Answer 4

system 1 -
Tversky and Kahneman (1974)
Strack and Mussweiler (1997)

system 2 -
Bechara et al. (2000)

Question 5

link system 1 to its study (intuitive thinking saq)

Answer 5

as system 1 thinking relies on heuristics to make quick and automatic judgments which is sometimes efficient but, they can also introduce systematic errors or biases – anchoring effect bias -in our thinking.

anchoring bias is the tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the “anchor”) when making decisions. during decision-making, anchoring occurs when individuals use an initial piece of information to make subsequent judgments. the use of anchors has many different effects on behaviour.

Tversky and Kahneman (1974) explains how intuitive thinking (system 1) works and its association with anchoring bias.

Question 6

link system 2 to its study (rational thinking saq)

Answer 6

system 2 processing has biological roots in the brain, particularly in regions like the prefrontal cortex.

this cognitive system allows us to think rationally, weigh multiple factors, and make well-informed decisions, in contrast to the instinctual and impulsive nature of system 1.

the vmPFC has been shown in other research to play a role in regulating impulsive behaviour.

Bechara et al. (2000) is used to explain whether vmPFC regulates behaviour through its ability to enable us to use system 2 processing.

Question 7

T&K (1974) aim -

Answer 7

to demonstrate the effect of anchoring on estimating the value of a mathematics problem.

Question 8

T&K (1974) sample -

Answer 8

two groups of high school students

Question 9

T&K (1974) procedure -

Answer 9

P in group 1 were part of the descending condition and had to estimate the answer to 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1. P in group 2 were part of the ascending condition and had to estimate the answer to 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 x 8.

both groups had to estimate the answer within 5 seconds.

Question 10

T&K (1974) hypothesis -

Answer 10

since we read from left to right, researchers assumed that group 1 would use “8” as an anchor and predict a higher value and group 2 will use “1” as the anchor and will predict a lower value.

the expectation was that the first number seen would bias the estimate of the value by the participant

Question 11

T&K (1974) results -

Answer 11

the results confirmed this expectation -> short time frame meant they had to use system 1 thinking.

the researchers found that the median for the descending group was 2250 and ascending group was 512. the actual value is 40320.

Question 12

Bechara et al. (2000) aim -

Answer 12

to study how lesions in the vmPFC affects our decision making & judgement.

Question 13

Bechara et al. (2000) sample -

Answer 13

17 healthy participants and 8 patients with lesions in vmPFC.

Question 14

Bechara et al. (2000) procedure -

Answer 14

all P participated in the Iowa gambling task -> out of 4 decks, participants selected a card from one of the four decks - they did this for 100 trials. they won or lost money based on their decision made in selecting a card.

what they didn’t know from the start was that two of the decks (B & D) had a high initial reward but high long term risk factor, whereas the other two decks (A & C) had a low initial risk and low reward. but actually, in the long run, the low risk and low reward decks would be more advantageous because they result in winning more money because they would lose less in the long run.

Question 15

Bechara et al. (2000) hypothesis -

Answer 15

usually takes P about 20 or 30 trials before they can realize the pattern and healthy controls typically opt for the “safe” decks, using deck A and C. in other words, they are able to resist the initial temptation of going for the high reward decks, because they can see that in the long-term this is a bad choice. they are using system two processing of the information to make this decision because they can think through the consequences of that decision.

Question 16

Bechara et al. (2000) results -

Answer 16

results showed that healthy participants were able to slowly move away from the disadvantageous decks (B and D). they chose more from the advantageous decks that had low initial reward but higher long-term gains (A and C).

the vmPFC lesion participants, however, did not demonstrate this same shift in behaviour. they continued to choose from the disadvantageous decks, regardless of the negative consequences.

suggesting that the vmPFC plays a role in our ability to use system two processing. if this part of our brain is damaged, we may not be able to think past initial impulses, weigh up more factors, and base our decisions on consequences, which are all fundamental characteristics of system two processing. this might lead to decisions being made based on system one, which is impulsive and automatic.

Question 17

S&M (1997) aim -

Answer 17

to see how the anchoring effect could influence guesses of Mahatma Gandhi’s age when he died.

Question 18

S&M (1997) sample -

Answer 18

60 male and female german university students

Question 19

S&M (1997) procedure -

Answer 19

they were asked two questions ->
Q1) high anchor condition (1/2 of P) - asked if Gandhi was older or younger than 140 years old when he died
low anchor condition (other 1/2) - asked if he was older or younger than 9 years old. T

Q2) then they were all asked how old they think he was when he died, this was a common question.

Question 20

S&M (1997) results -

Answer 20

P in HAC guessed on average he was 67 years old, whereas those in the LAC guessed he was 50 years old when he died.

demonstrates the anchoring effect. It also shows it can have an effect even if the numbers are implausible.

in terms of system 1 (fast, intuitive, automatic), participants’ anchor-consistent knowledge is activated by the anchor. this influences their guess. For example, people in the 140 condition might link this number to the fact that Gandhi was old when he died, so 67 sounds about right & vice versa for the LAC.

alternatively, they might use system 2 processing if they start their guess with the anchor and then re-adjust from there. e.g. they know 140 is too high so they make readjustments. this requires more cognitive effort than the first approach.

Question 21

evaluate model of T&DM (strengths) -

Answer 21

-> the model could be used to improve decision making in key environments such as business, education, policy – making etc.

-> biological evidence exists that suggests different types of thinking take place in different physical spaces of the brain (this can be seen in the experiment conducted by Bechara etal – iowa gambling task).

-> the model has a clear and straightforward structure that helps in understanding how thinking works in different situations.

-> it clearly lists the qualities of both systems and shows how they are completely distinct. one is fast and error prone whereas the other is slow and leads to fewer errors as it is more rational and reasonable in making decisions.

^ seen by T&K study as if one system is blocked, the other works completely fine, suggesting that they work independently.

Question 22

evaluate model of T&DM (limitations) -

Answer 22

-> it oversimplifies the complexities of thinking by dividing it into just 2 systems, overlooking other aspects like going back and forth the 2 systems and deciding which one gives the more correct answer.

^ seen by S&M study as once they decide on an estimate using system 1, they can change their answer once they use system 2 as well.

-> it lacks flexibility as the model is rigid and doesn’t account for individual differences in decision making or consider the influence of emotions, motivations, or attention on memory.

-> trying to operationalize both system 1 and system 2 thinking is difficult so research in this field is not entirely conclusive as to which system is being used during the set tasks.