Concept maps Flashcards

1
Q

Classical theory of categorization

Prior history

A
  • Disjunctive concpets (which require at least 1 attribute is present), which are the rarest are also the hardest to learn
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Classical theory of categorization

Main claim

A

Categories are defined by a set of features that are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for category membership

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Classical theory of categorization

Competing theory and how it differs

A
  • Prototype theory - the set of features are characteristic and not defining
  • Explains the typicality effect
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Classical theory of categorization

Data undermining the theory

A
  • People agree that cars seats are chairs, whcih are furniture, but car seats are not furniture
  • The Typicality effects
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Classical theory of categorization

Major weakness

A
  • It is impossible to define the necessary and sufficient features for some categories
  • Strict hierachy doesn’t always exist
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Classical theory of categorization

Similar theory and one of its features

A

Essentialism: Both theories state that there are immutable characteristics that define a category and those features are not dependent on context

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Classical theory of categorization

2 characteristic features

A
  • Category membership is binary
  • Concpets can be organized in a hierachy of inclusion relations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Exemplar/instance-based theory

Prior history

A

Prototype theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Exemplar/instance-based theory

Main claim

A

Category membership depends on similarity to a set of stored exemplars

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Exemplar/instance-based theory

Competing theory

A

Classical theory - Does not depend on similarities but specific features that have to be present

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Exemplar/instance-based theory

Data supporting the theory

A
  • Participantssay more often that a 18-inch object is a pizza than a ruler because rulers usually don’t vary in size but pizzas do
  • A prototype would be insufficient because both have the same average size
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Exemplar/instance-based theory

Major strenght of the theory

A

Can explain typicality effects

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Exemplar/instance-based theory

Similar theory and one major feature

A

Prototype theory: Both theories state that categorization is based on similarity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Exemplar/instance-based theory

2 characteristic features

A
  • Many exemplars for each category are stored in memory
  • Objects are matched in parallel with all stored instances to compute similarity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Protoype theory

Prior history

A

Classical theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Protoype theory

Main claim

A

Category membership depends on similarity to a prototype, which is the most typical member of the category

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Protoype theory

Competing theory and how it differs

A

Classical theory: Assumes binary category membership

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Protoype theory

Data supporting the theory

A
  • Objects more similar to the prototype get identified faster
  • People tend to list characteristics, not defining features, of categories
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Protoype theory

Major weakness

A
  • Some abstract concepts do not show prototype structure
  • The theory assumes people use only fairly superficial features, but they may use more central ones instead
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Protoype theory

Similar theory and major features

A

Exemplar-based theory: Both theories state that categorization is based on similarity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Protoype theory

2 characteristic features

A
  • The features of a prototype are characteristic, not necessary
  • Category boundaries are fizzy, not absolute
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Explanation-based theory

Prior history

A

Exemplar-based theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Explanation-based theory

Main claim

A

To categorize objects, people use common-sense explanations, motivated by their intuitive theories about the world

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Explanation-based theory

Data suporting the theory

A
  • The Dyirbal aboriginal tribe classifies nouns into meaningful categories, which are neither rule- nor similarity-based. They are knowledge based
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Explanation-based theory | Major strength
* Explains why classification can vary between contexts - different attributes (central or superficial) will be used * Explains why some concepts seem natural and others not - for the former an explanatory theory or theories can be found
26
Explanation-based theory | Similar theory and one of its features
**Exemplar-based theory:** Both theories rely on stored information about objects from past experiences
27
Explanation-based theory | 2 charcteristic features
* The common-sense explanations specify what attributes are used (superficial or central) * Concepts are not isolated from knowledge
28
Essentialism | Prior history
Prototype theory
29
Essentialism | Main claim
Objects belong to categories due to having essential, inherent features that define them
30
Essentialism | Competing theory and how it differs
**Prototype theory:** Assumes that superficial attributes are used for categorization
31
Essentialism | Data supporting the theory
Students with non-essentialist beliefs have higher thresholds for categorizing biracial faces as white
32
Essentialism | Application
Can be applied to explain race essentialism, genetic essentialism and gender/sexual-orientation views
33
Essentialism | Similar theory and one of its features
Classical theory: Both see categories as immutable
33
Essentialism | 2 characteristic features
* Deep, essential, immutable attributes define an objects features * Causal relations are emphazised, instead of similarities
34
Representional Change theory | Prior history
Gestalt theory, extended by this theory
35
Representional Change theory | Main claim
Initially, a problem is represented mentally. After that an unconcious search for mental operators leads to the selection of the most strongly activated operator
36
Representional Change theory | Competing theory and how it differs
**Problem space hypothesis**: Assumes problems are solved by moving from initial to goal state
37
Representional Change theory | Data supporting the theory
In the Roman matchstick numeral problem, peoples initial representation introduces unneccesary contraints that reduce performance
38
Representional Change theory | Major Weakness
Underestimates the range of strategies used to solve insight problems
39
Representional Change theory | Similar theory and one of its features
**Mental model theory:** Both discuss how behavior is guided by mental representations (rather than by cognitive processes)
40
Representional Change theory | 2 characteristic features
* An impasse can be overcome by constraint relaxation, elaboration or re-encoding * The process representation change to search to impasse is a cycle
41
Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving | Prior history
Gestaltists dominated the early research on problem solving
42
Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving | Main claim
Novel/ill-defined problems are solved using insight
43
Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving | Competing theory and how it differs
Problem space hypothesis: Problems are solved gradually by moving from the initial to the goal state
44
Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving | Data supporting the theory
* Self-reports of warmth progressively increase during non-insight problems, and suddenly in insight problems
45
Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving | Major weakness
Assumes that insight always produces correct solutions, but this is false
46
Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving | Similar theory and one of its features
**Representional Change Theory:** Both theories assume that insight occurs after a change in the mental representation of a problem
47
Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving | 2 characteristic features
* Special-process viewpoint: Insight is fundamentally different from other cognitive processes * Insight involves a restructering of the problems mental representation
48
Problem space theory | Prior history
Identified the hill climbing and means-end analysis heuristics
49
Problem space theory | Main claim
Problems are solved by starting from an initial state and aiming to reach the goal state by using different mental operations
50
Problem space theory | Competing theory and how it differs
**Representional change theory:** Assumes problem solving is facilitated by insight moments based on representional changes
51
Problem space theory | Data supporting the theory
People engage in limited planning during Towers of Hanoi due to limited WM capacity
52
Problem space theory | Major weakness
Newell and Simon relied on artificial problems to prove this theory
53
Problem space theory | Similar theory and one feature
**Cognitive miser model:** Both emphasize use of heuristics
54
Problem space theory | 2 characteristic features
* Heuristics are used to problem-solve due to limited processing capacity * Algorithms are rarely used
55
Johnsohn-Laidts mental model theory | Main claim
When reasoning/problem-solving people contsruct mental models that represent the problem/situation at hand
56
Johnsohn-Laidts mental model theory | Competing theory and how it differs
Tripartite model: Focuses on cognitive processes and individual differences
57
Johnsohn-Laidts mental model theory | Data supporting this theory
* WM (especially central executive and visuospatial sketchpad) are involved in constructing mental models * WM capacity correlates with syllogistic reasoning performance
58
Johnsohn-Laidts mental model theory | Major weakness
* Weak at rejecting responses people do not produce * Processes involved in forming mental models are underspecified
59
Johnsohn-Laidts mental model theory | Similar theory and one of its features
**Representional change theory:** Both theories discuss the role of mental representations in guiding behavior
60
Johnsohn-Laidts mental model theory | 2 characteristic features
* Principle of truth - Mental models represent whats true but not whats false * Mental models have the same structure as the represented event/location
61
Dual-system/process theory | Prior history
Mental model theory
62
Dual-system/process theory | Main claim
Distinguishes between 2 systems/processes: One intuitive system and one deliberate system
62
Dual-system/process theory | Competing theory and how it differs
**Logical intuition model:** Allows for logical and heuristic type 1 responses
63
Dual-system/process theory | Data supporting the theory
People exhibit less belief bias when they have more time
64
Dual-system/process theory | Major Weakness
It is not always true that type 1 processes lead to wrong answers and that type 2 processes lead to correct answers
65
Dual-system/process theory | Similar theory and one of its features
**Tripartite model:** Also distinguishes between 2 broad classes of cognitive processes
66
Dual-system/process theory | 2 characteristic features
* **System 1:** Fast autonomous, no WM, unconcious *** System 2:** Slow, controlled involves WM, concious, controlled, correlated with IQ
67
Tripartite model | Prior history
High IQ participants perform better on deductive reasoning tasks. A model was needed to explains IQs impact on reasoning
68
Tripartite model | Main claim
DIstinguishes between autonomous (type 1) mind and algorithmic and reflective minds (type 2)
69
Tripartite model | Competing theory and how it differs
**Mental model theory:** Focuses on mental representations instead of cognitive processes
70
Tripartite model | Data undermining the theory
There is much overlap between rationality and intelligence (r=0.6) which the model assumes to be seperate
71
Tripartite model | Major strenght
Explains individual differences in reasoning
72
Tripartite model | Similar theory and one of its features
**Dual-process models:** Both theories distinguish between 2 broad types of cognitive processes
73
Tripartite model | 2 characteristic features
* The reflective mind decides if type 2 processes are to be used * The algorithmic mind overrides incorrect heuristic responses made by the autonomous mind
74
Multi-attribute theory | Main claim
Explains approximation to ideal decision-making with a 6-step model, rating each option on a number of attributes
75
Multi-attribute theory | Competing theory and how it differs
**Elimination-by-aspect theory:** People eliminate options by considering 1 attribute after the other
76
Multi-attribute theory | Data undermining the theory
When people choose between many flats, they first reduce the number by using simpler strategies, they satisfice
77
Multi-attribute theory | Application
People use this theory when choosing between relatively few options
78
Multi-attribute theory | SImilar theory and one of its features
**Expected utility theory:** Both are normative and focus on optimising the final outcome
79
Multi-attribute theory | 2 characteristic features
* Every attribute has a different weight * All attributes are used simultaneously
80
Support theory of judgment | Prior history
Based on the concept of availability heuristics
81
Support theory of judgment | Main claim
An event appears more or less likely depending on how it is described
82
Support theory of judgment | Competing theory and how it differs
**Expected utility theory:** Doesn't allow for solution-irrelevant details to influence decision making
83
Support theory of judgment | Data supporting the theory
Subadditivity effect
84
Support theory of judgment | Major weakness
Doesn't explain why providing an explicit description increases and event's subjective probability
85
Support theory of judgment | Similar theory and one of its features
**Prospect theory:** The presentation of an event/question influences our judgments and decisions
86
Support theory of judgment | 2 characteristic features
* We must distinguish between events and their description * Predicts the subadditivity effect
87
Expected utility theory | Prior history
Normative theories assumption that people make rational decisions that they should be making
88
Expected utility theory | Main claim
When choosing between several options, we try to maximize utility (subjective value attached to an outcome
89
Expected utility theory | Competing theory and how it differs
**Prospect theory:** Doesn't assume rational decision-making, but acknowledges framing, loss & risk aversion
90
Expected utility theory | Data undermining the thoery
The fact that risk and loss aversion exist
91
Expected utility theory | Major weakness
Cannot explain framing effects
92
Expected utility theory | Similar theory and one of its features
**Game theory:** Also proposes that people make rational decisions
93
Expected utility theory | 2 characteristic features
* Expected utility = P(outcome) x Utility of outcome * People compute expected utility for all options and make an economically rational decision
94
Prospect theory | Prior history
Expected utility theories inability to explain framing and loss & risk aversion
95
Prospect theory | Main claim
People identify a reference pointrepresenting their current state. They treat losses and gains differently
96
Prospect theory | Competing theory and how it differs
**Game theory:** Proposes that people start making rational decisions when they get experience with a task
97
Prospect theory | Data upporting the theory
In the Asian Disease problem people preferentially choose options framed as certain gains and avoid options framed as certain losses
98
Prospect theory | Major strenght
Can explain sunk-cost effects, risk & loss
99
Prospect theory | Similr theory and one of its features
Support theory of judgment - The presentation of an event/question determines to an extent our judgments and decisions
100
Prospect theory | 2 characteristic features
* When faced with the choice between certain or probable gains people are risk-averse * When the choice is between certain or probable losses, people seek risks
101
Greene's dual-system theory of moral judgment | Prior history
On personal (compared to inpersonal) moral dilemmas, people make more deontological judgments
102
Greene's dual-system theory of moral judgment | Main claim
Whether people make deontological or utilitarian judgment is based on which system is used
103
Greene's dual-system theory of moral judgment | Competing theory and how it differs
**CNI model:** Resolves some ambiguities by considering conseuences, moral norms, and preference for inaction
104
Greene's dual-system theory of moral judgment | Data supporting the theory
Individuas making utilitarian judgments have higher DLPFC activity than those making deontological judgments
105
Greene's dual-system theory of moral judgment | Major weakness
Oversimplified, participants making deontological judgments often process information relevant to ultilitarian judgments too
106
Greene's dual-system theory of moral judgment | Similar theory and one of its features
**Social intuitionist model:** Allows that moral decisions are intuitive
107
Greene's dual-system theory of moral judgment | 2 characteristic features
* System 1 is responsible for deontological jusgments * System 2 is responsible for utilitarian judgments
108
Haidt's social intuitionist model | Prior history
Rationalist models assume that moral judgment is caused by moral reasoning
109
Haidt's social intuitionist model | Main claim
Moral judgment is quick and intuitive
110
Haidt's social intuitionist model | Competing theory and how it differs
**Dual-process theory:** Allows for both intuitive and reflective processes
111
Haidt's social intuitionist model | Data supporting htis theory
**Dumbfounding:** Sometimes people are unable to provide rational or logical explanations for their moral judgments
112
Haidt's social intuitionist model | Application
Can explain why people with different political ideologies are polarized on moral topics
113
Haidt's social intuitionist model | Similar theory and one of its features
**Prospect theory:** Also deemphasizes rational thinking
114
Haidt's social intuitionist model | 2 characteristic features
* The immediate intuitive judgments are influenced by social and cultural factors * Moral reasoning comes after the initial moral judgment and aims to justify it
115
Relationship regulation theories | Prior history
Rational models theory
116
Relationship regulation theories | Main claim
Moral motives, judgments and behavior regulate social relationships
117
Relationship regulation theories | Data supporting the theory
Interpersonal obligations are sometimes conceptualized in moral terms
118
Relationship regulation theories | Competing theory and how it differs
**Dual-system theory:** Explains moral judgments as influenced by intuitive and reflective processes
119
Relationship regulation theories | Major Strenght
States that morality functions to sustain social relationships which can explain a broad domain of psychosocial phenomena
120
Relationship regulation theories | Similar theory and one of its features
**Social intuitionist model:** Moral reasoning is done for socially strategic purposes
121
Relationship regulation theories | 2 characteristic features
* 4 fundamental motives (unity, hierachy, equality and proportionality) are used * Any action can be considered right in the framework of the right motive
122
Moral foundations theory | Prior history
**Social intuitionist model:** One of the theories assumptions is that the model is true
123
Moral foundations theory | Main claim
There are 5 psychological moral foundations on which people and cultures build their systems of morality
124
Moral foundations theory | Competing theory and how it differs
**Dual-systems theory:** States that moral judgments are influenced by 2 types of cognitive processes
125
Moral foundations theory | Data supporting the theory
Conservatives tend to use the binding foundations more than liberals
126
Moral foundations theory | Major strenght
Explains cultural variations in moral judgments
127
Moral foundations theory | Similar theory and one of its features
The theory of 3 ethics - Divinity, autonomy and community
128
Moral foundations theory | 2 characteristic features
* Binding foundations - Loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion and purity/degradation * Individualizing foundations - Care/harm and fairness/cheating