Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Complex Cognition > Concept maps > Flashcards

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
Q

Explanation-based theory

Major strength

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Explanation-based theory

Similar theory and one of its features

A

Exemplar-based theory: Both theories rely on stored information about objects from past experiences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Explanation-based theory

2 charcteristic features

A
  • The common-sense explanations specify what attributes are used (superficial or central)
  • Concepts are not isolated from knowledge
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Essentialism

Prior history

A

Prototype theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Essentialism

Main claim

A

Objects belong to categories due to having essential, inherent features that define them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Essentialism

Competing theory and how it differs

A

Prototype theory: Assumes that superficial attributes are used for categorization

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Essentialism

Data supporting the theory

A

Students with non-essentialist beliefs have higher thresholds for categorizing biracial faces as white

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Essentialism

Application

A

Can be applied to explain race essentialism, genetic essentialism and gender/sexual-orientation views

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Essentialism

Similar theory and one of its features

A

Classical theory: Both see categories as immutable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Essentialism

2 characteristic features

A
  • Deep, essential, immutable attributes define an objects features
  • Causal relations are emphazised, instead of similarities
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Representional Change theory

Prior history

A

Gestalt theory, extended by this theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Representional Change theory

Main claim

A

Initially, a problem is represented mentally. After that an unconcious search for mental operators leads to the selection of the most strongly activated operator

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Representional Change theory

Competing theory and how it differs

A

Problem space hypothesis: Assumes problems are solved by moving from initial to goal state

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Representional Change theory

Data supporting the theory

A

In the Roman matchstick numeral problem, peoples initial representation introduces unneccesary contraints that reduce performance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Representional Change theory

Major Weakness

A

Underestimates the range of strategies used to solve insight problems

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Representional Change theory

Similar theory and one of its features

A

Mental model theory: Both discuss how behavior is guided by mental representations (rather than by cognitive processes)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Representional Change theory

2 characteristic features

A
  • An impasse can be overcome by constraint relaxation, elaboration or re-encoding
  • The process representation change to search to impasse is a cycle
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving

Prior history

A

Gestaltists dominated the early research on problem solving

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving

Main claim

A

Novel/ill-defined problems are solved using insight

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving

Competing theory and how it differs

A

Problem space hypothesis: Problems are solved gradually by moving from the initial to the goal state

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving

Data supporting the theory

A
  • Self-reports of warmth progressively increase during non-insight problems, and suddenly in insight problems
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving

Major weakness

A

Assumes that insight always produces correct solutions, but this is false

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving

Similar theory and one of its features

A

Representional Change Theory: Both theories assume that insight occurs after a change in the mental representation of a problem

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving

2 characteristic features

A
  • Special-process viewpoint: Insight is fundamentally different from other cognitive processes
  • Insight involves a restructering of the problems mental representation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

Problem space theory

Prior history

A

Identified the hill climbing and means-end analysis heuristics

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

Problem space theory

Main claim

A

Problems are solved by starting from an initial state and aiming to reach the goal state by using different mental operations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

Problem space theory

Competing theory and how it differs

A

Representional change theory: Assumes problem solving is facilitated by insight moments based on representional changes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

Problem space theory

Data supporting the theory

A

People engage in limited planning during Towers of Hanoi due to limited WM capacity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

Problem space theory

Major weakness

A

Newell and Simon relied on artificial problems to prove this theory

53
Q

Problem space theory

Similar theory and one feature

A

Cognitive miser model: Both emphasize use of heuristics

54
Q

Problem space theory

2 characteristic features

A
  • Heuristics are used to problem-solve due to limited processing capacity
  • Algorithms are rarely used
55
Q

Johnsohn-Laidts mental model theory

Main claim

A

When reasoning/problem-solving people contsruct mental models that represent the problem/situation at hand

56
Q

Johnsohn-Laidts mental model theory

Competing theory and how it differs

A

Tripartite model: Focuses on cognitive processes and individual differences

57
Q

Johnsohn-Laidts mental model theory

Data supporting this theory

A
  • WM (especially central executive and visuospatial sketchpad) are involved in constructing mental models
  • WM capacity correlates with syllogistic reasoning performance
58
Q

Johnsohn-Laidts mental model theory

Major weakness

A
  • Weak at rejecting responses people do not produce
  • Processes involved in forming mental models are underspecified
59
Q

Johnsohn-Laidts mental model theory

Similar theory and one of its features

A

Representional change theory: Both theories discuss the role of mental representations in guiding behavior

60
Q

Johnsohn-Laidts mental model theory

2 characteristic features

A
  • Principle of truth - Mental models represent whats true but not whats false
  • Mental models have the same structure as the represented event/location
61
Q

Dual-system/process theory

Prior history

A

Mental model theory

62
Q

Dual-system/process theory

Main claim

A

Distinguishes between 2 systems/processes: One intuitive system and one deliberate system

62
Q

Dual-system/process theory

Competing theory and how it differs

A

Logical intuition model: Allows for logical and heuristic type 1 responses

63
Q

Dual-system/process theory

Data supporting the theory

A

People exhibit less belief bias when they have more time

64
Q

Dual-system/process theory

Major Weakness

A

It is not always true that type 1 processes lead to wrong answers and that type 2 processes lead to correct answers

65
Q

Dual-system/process theory

Similar theory and one of its features

A

Tripartite model: Also distinguishes between 2 broad classes of cognitive processes

66
Q

Dual-system/process theory

2 characteristic features

A
  • System 1: Fast autonomous, no WM, unconcious
    * System 2: Slow, controlled involves WM, concious, controlled, correlated with IQ
67
Q

Tripartite model

Prior history

A

High IQ participants perform better on deductive reasoning tasks. A model was needed to explains IQs impact on reasoning

68
Q

Tripartite model

Main claim

A

DIstinguishes between autonomous (type 1) mind and algorithmic and reflective minds (type 2)

69
Q

Tripartite model

Competing theory and how it differs

A

Mental model theory: Focuses on mental representations instead of cognitive processes

70
Q

Tripartite model

Data undermining the theory

A

There is much overlap between rationality and intelligence (r=0.6) which the model assumes to be seperate

71
Q

Tripartite model

Major strenght

A

Explains individual differences in reasoning

72
Q

Tripartite model

Similar theory and one of its features

A

Dual-process models: Both theories distinguish between 2 broad types of cognitive processes

73
Q

Tripartite model

2 characteristic features

A
  • 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
Q

Multi-attribute theory

Main claim

A

Explains approximation to ideal decision-making with a 6-step model, rating each option on a number of attributes

75
Q

Multi-attribute theory

Competing theory and how it differs

A

Elimination-by-aspect theory: People eliminate options by considering 1 attribute after the other

76
Q

Multi-attribute theory

Data undermining the theory

A

When people choose between many flats, they first reduce the number by using simpler strategies, they satisfice

77
Q

Multi-attribute theory

Application

A

People use this theory when choosing between relatively few options

78
Q

Multi-attribute theory

SImilar theory and one of its features

A

Expected utility theory: Both are normative and focus on optimising the final outcome

79
Q

Multi-attribute theory

2 characteristic features

A
  • Every attribute has a different weight
  • All attributes are used simultaneously
80
Q

Support theory of judgment

Prior history

A

Based on the concept of availability heuristics

81
Q

Support theory of judgment

Main claim

A

An event appears more or less likely depending on how it is described

82
Q

Support theory of judgment

Competing theory and how it differs

A

Expected utility theory: Doesn’t allow for solution-irrelevant details to influence decision making

83
Q

Support theory of judgment

Data supporting the theory

A

Subadditivity effect

84
Q

Support theory of judgment

Major weakness

A

Doesn’t explain why providing an explicit description increases and event’s subjective probability

85
Q

Support theory of judgment

Similar theory and one of its features

A

Prospect theory: The presentation of an event/question influences our judgments and decisions

86
Q

Support theory of judgment

2 characteristic features

A
  • We must distinguish between events and their description
  • Predicts the subadditivity effect
87
Q

Expected utility theory

Prior history

A

Normative theories assumption that people make rational decisions that they should be making

88
Q

Expected utility theory

Main claim

A

When choosing between several options, we try to maximize utility (subjective value attached to an outcome

89
Q

Expected utility theory

Competing theory and how it differs

A

Prospect theory: Doesn’t assume rational decision-making, but acknowledges framing, loss & risk aversion

90
Q

Expected utility theory

Data undermining the thoery

A

The fact that risk and loss aversion exist

91
Q

Expected utility theory

Major weakness

A

Cannot explain framing effects

92
Q

Expected utility theory

Similar theory and one of its features

A

Game theory: Also proposes that people make rational decisions

93
Q

Expected utility theory

2 characteristic features

A
  • Expected utility = P(outcome) x Utility of outcome
  • People compute expected utility for all options and make an economically rational decision
94
Q

Prospect theory

Prior history

A

Expected utility theories inability to explain framing and loss & risk aversion

95
Q

Prospect theory

Main claim

A

People identify a reference pointrepresenting their current state. They treat losses and gains differently

96
Q

Prospect theory

Competing theory and how it differs

A

Game theory: Proposes that people start making rational decisions when they get experience with a task

97
Q

Prospect theory

Data upporting the theory

A

In the Asian Disease problem people preferentially choose options framed as certain gains and avoid options framed as certain losses

98
Q

Prospect theory

Major strenght

A

Can explain sunk-cost effects, risk & loss

99
Q

Prospect theory

Similr theory and one of its features

A

Support theory of judgment - The presentation of an event/question determines to an extent our judgments and decisions

100
Q

Prospect theory

2 characteristic features

A
  • 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
Q

Greene’s dual-system theory of moral judgment

Prior history

A

On personal (compared to inpersonal) moral dilemmas, people make more deontological judgments

102
Q

Greene’s dual-system theory of moral judgment

Main claim

A

Whether people make deontological or utilitarian judgment is based on which system is used

103
Q

Greene’s dual-system theory of moral judgment

Competing theory and how it differs

A

CNI model: Resolves some ambiguities by considering conseuences, moral norms, and preference for inaction

104
Q

Greene’s dual-system theory of moral judgment

Data supporting the theory

A

Individuas making utilitarian judgments have higher DLPFC activity than those making deontological judgments

105
Q

Greene’s dual-system theory of moral judgment

Major weakness

A

Oversimplified, participants making deontological judgments often process information relevant to ultilitarian judgments too

106
Q

Greene’s dual-system theory of moral judgment

Similar theory and one of its features

A

Social intuitionist model: Allows that moral decisions are intuitive

107
Q

Greene’s dual-system theory of moral judgment

2 characteristic features

A
  • System 1 is responsible for deontological jusgments
  • System 2 is responsible for utilitarian judgments
108
Q

Haidt’s social intuitionist model

Prior history

A

Rationalist models assume that moral judgment is caused by moral reasoning

109
Q

Haidt’s social intuitionist model

Main claim

A

Moral judgment is quick and intuitive

110
Q

Haidt’s social intuitionist model

Competing theory and how it differs

A

Dual-process theory: Allows for both intuitive and reflective processes

111
Q

Haidt’s social intuitionist model

Data supporting htis theory

A

Dumbfounding: Sometimes people are unable to provide rational or logical explanations for their moral judgments

112
Q

Haidt’s social intuitionist model

Application

A

Can explain why people with different political ideologies are polarized on moral topics

113
Q

Haidt’s social intuitionist model

Similar theory and one of its features

A

Prospect theory: Also deemphasizes rational thinking

114
Q

Haidt’s social intuitionist model

2 characteristic features

A
  • 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
Q

Relationship regulation theories

Prior history

A

Rational models theory

116
Q

Relationship regulation theories

Main claim

A

Moral motives, judgments and behavior regulate social relationships

117
Q

Relationship regulation theories

Data supporting the theory

A

Interpersonal obligations are sometimes conceptualized in moral terms

118
Q

Relationship regulation theories

Competing theory and how it differs

A

Dual-system theory: Explains moral judgments as influenced by intuitive and reflective processes

119
Q

Relationship regulation theories

Major Strenght

A

States that morality functions to sustain social relationships which can explain a broad domain of psychosocial phenomena

120
Q

Relationship regulation theories

Similar theory and one of its features

A

Social intuitionist model: Moral reasoning is done for socially strategic purposes

121
Q

Relationship regulation theories

2 characteristic features

A
  • 4 fundamental motives (unity, hierachy, equality and proportionality) are used
  • Any action can be considered right in the framework of the right motive
122
Q

Moral foundations theory

Prior history

A

Social intuitionist model: One of the theories assumptions is that the model is true

123
Q

Moral foundations theory

Main claim

A

There are 5 psychological moral foundations on which people and cultures build their systems of morality

124
Q

Moral foundations theory

Competing theory and how it differs

A

Dual-systems theory: States that moral judgments are influenced by 2 types of cognitive processes

125
Q

Moral foundations theory

Data supporting the theory

A

Conservatives tend to use the binding foundations more than liberals

126
Q

Moral foundations theory

Major strenght

A

Explains cultural variations in moral judgments

127
Q

Moral foundations theory

Similar theory and one of its features

A

The theory of 3 ethics - Divinity, autonomy and community

128
Q

Moral foundations theory

2 characteristic features

A
  • Binding foundations - Loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion and purity/degradation
  • Individualizing foundations - Care/harm and fairness/cheating

Complex Cognition (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions