Cognitive Approach - Cognitive Processing - Thinking & Decision-Making Flashcards
Thinking
- The process of using knowledge and information to make plans, interpret the world and make predictions about the world
Decison-Making
- A cognitive process where people choose a belief or action from a wide range of possibilities
- Needed for problem-solving to reach a conclusion
Dual Processing Model
- Developed by Kahneman
- System 1
- automatic
- intuitive (nonconscious)
- effortless
- fast
- not logic based
- prone to error/biases
- System 2
- analytic
- rational
- under conscious control
- takes effort
- slow
- reliable
Dual Processing Model Strength
- Lot of evidence to support the conclusion that we use heuristics in decision making and that they do not always lead to errors
- The dual process model (System 1 & 2) is widely used and helps us to understand humans as “activated actors” with access to automatic thinking and conscious controlled processing
- The tests for cognitive biases are reliable in their results.
- The is biological evidence that difference types of thinking may be processed in different parts other brain
Dual Processing Model Limitations
- Overly reductionist model as it does not clearly explain how (or even if) these modes of thinking interact or how our thinking and decision making could be influenced by emotions
- The labels “representativeness” or “anchor” are simplistic and fail to show underlying mechanisms involved in making a decision
- The definitions of System 1 and System 2 are not always clear (construct validity)
- Research on the model often lacks ecological validity
- People are asked to make decisions with very limited information
Alter et al. (2007)
Aim:
- Investigate whether individuals employ System-2 rather than System-1 thinking when tasks become unusually difficult.
Pps:
- 40 undergraduates
Procedure:
- Pps were asked to complete the 3-item Cognitive Relfection Test
- control condition (fleunt): printed in an easy-to-read
font
- test condition (disfluent): printed in a hard-to-read font
Results:
- Higher accuract in the test (disfluent) condition (M=2.45) vs control (fluent) condiiton (M=1.90)
- 90% of the fluent condition answered min. 1 question wrong, only 35% in the disfluent condition
- 23% of the pps gave incorrected and intuitive responses in the fluent condition vs 10% disfluent condition
Englich and Mussweiler (2001)
Experiment 1
Aim:
- Investigate if anchoring bias (that sentencing demands can serve as anchors) could play a significant role in determining sentencing in courtrooms
Pps:
- 44 senior German law students
Procedure:
- PPS were given a scenario of a rape case, along with copies of the relevant passages from the penal code
- The materials were related to a case of an alleged rape
- After pps had formed an option about the case, they were handed a questionnaire.
- 1/2 of the participants were first told that the prosecutor demanded a sentence of 34 months, and the other half 12 months, for the defendant.
- They had to indicate whether this sentence was too low, adequate, or too high.
- After, pps were asked to indicate the sentence they would give
Results:
- for 34 months: pps recommended on average 8 months longer in prison than for 12 months
Experiment 2:
Aim:
- Examine the role of experience in decision making in trial judges
Pps:
- 16 trial judges (12 male, 4 female) from one regional superior court in Germany
- Mean age 44.6 years
- Worked as judges for M=15.40 years
Procedure:
- Randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions
- Same case materials as experiment 1
- Same central questionnaire and general instructions as experiment 1
- 1/2 demand was 34 months, other1.2 demand was 12 months
- Pps were sent the case materials and central questionnaire and general instructions
- In the instructions, they were told to form an opinion about the case before answering the questionnaire
Results:
- The given sentences were higher when pps evaluated the high demand than when they evaluated the low demand
