Concept maps Flashcards
Classical theory of categorization
Prior history
- Disjunctive concpets (which require at least 1 attribute is present), which are the rarest are also the hardest to learn
Classical theory of categorization
Main claim
Categories are defined by a set of features that are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for category membership
Classical theory of categorization
Competing theory and how it differs
- Prototype theory - the set of features are characteristic and not defining
- Explains the typicality effect
Classical theory of categorization
Data undermining the theory
- People agree that cars seats are chairs, whcih are furniture, but car seats are not furniture
- The Typicality effects
Classical theory of categorization
Major weakness
- It is impossible to define the necessary and sufficient features for some categories
- Strict hierachy doesn’t always exist
Classical theory of categorization
Similar theory and one of its features
Essentialism: Both theories state that there are immutable characteristics that define a category and those features are not dependent on context
Classical theory of categorization
2 characteristic features
- Category membership is binary
- Concpets can be organized in a hierachy of inclusion relations
Exemplar/instance-based theory
Prior history
Prototype theory
Exemplar/instance-based theory
Main claim
Category membership depends on similarity to a set of stored exemplars
Exemplar/instance-based theory
Competing theory
Classical theory - Does not depend on similarities but specific features that have to be present
Exemplar/instance-based theory
Data supporting the theory
- 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
Exemplar/instance-based theory
Major strenght of the theory
Can explain typicality effects
Exemplar/instance-based theory
Similar theory and one major feature
Prototype theory: Both theories state that categorization is based on similarity
Exemplar/instance-based theory
2 characteristic features
- Many exemplars for each category are stored in memory
- Objects are matched in parallel with all stored instances to compute similarity
Protoype theory
Prior history
Classical theory
Protoype theory
Main claim
Category membership depends on similarity to a prototype, which is the most typical member of the category
Protoype theory
Competing theory and how it differs
Classical theory: Assumes binary category membership
Protoype theory
Data supporting the theory
- Objects more similar to the prototype get identified faster
- People tend to list characteristics, not defining features, of categories
Protoype theory
Major weakness
- 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
Protoype theory
Similar theory and major features
Exemplar-based theory: Both theories state that categorization is based on similarity
Protoype theory
2 characteristic features
- The features of a prototype are characteristic, not necessary
- Category boundaries are fizzy, not absolute
Explanation-based theory
Prior history
Exemplar-based theory
Explanation-based theory
Main claim
To categorize objects, people use common-sense explanations, motivated by their intuitive theories about the world
Explanation-based theory
Data suporting the theory
- The Dyirbal aboriginal tribe classifies nouns into meaningful categories, which are neither rule- nor similarity-based. They are knowledge based
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
Explanation-based theory
Similar theory and one of its features
Exemplar-based theory: Both theories rely on stored information about objects from past experiences
Explanation-based theory
2 charcteristic features
- The common-sense explanations specify what attributes are used (superficial or central)
- Concepts are not isolated from knowledge
Essentialism
Prior history
Prototype theory
Essentialism
Main claim
Objects belong to categories due to having essential, inherent features that define them
Essentialism
Competing theory and how it differs
Prototype theory: Assumes that superficial attributes are used for categorization
Essentialism
Data supporting the theory
Students with non-essentialist beliefs have higher thresholds for categorizing biracial faces as white
Essentialism
Application
Can be applied to explain race essentialism, genetic essentialism and gender/sexual-orientation views
Essentialism
Similar theory and one of its features
Classical theory: Both see categories as immutable
Essentialism
2 characteristic features
- Deep, essential, immutable attributes define an objects features
- Causal relations are emphazised, instead of similarities
Representional Change theory
Prior history
Gestalt theory, extended by this theory
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
Representional Change theory
Competing theory and how it differs
Problem space hypothesis: Assumes problems are solved by moving from initial to goal state
Representional Change theory
Data supporting the theory
In the Roman matchstick numeral problem, peoples initial representation introduces unneccesary contraints that reduce performance
Representional Change theory
Major Weakness
Underestimates the range of strategies used to solve insight problems
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)
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
Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving
Prior history
Gestaltists dominated the early research on problem solving
Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving
Main claim
Novel/ill-defined problems are solved using insight
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
Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving
Data supporting the theory
- Self-reports of warmth progressively increase during non-insight problems, and suddenly in insight problems
Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving
Major weakness
Assumes that insight always produces correct solutions, but this is false
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
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
Problem space theory
Prior history
Identified the hill climbing and means-end analysis heuristics
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
Problem space theory
Competing theory and how it differs
Representional change theory: Assumes problem solving is facilitated by insight moments based on representional changes
Problem space theory
Data supporting the theory
People engage in limited planning during Towers of Hanoi due to limited WM capacity
Problem space theory
Major weakness
Newell and Simon relied on artificial problems to prove this theory
Problem space theory
Similar theory and one feature
Cognitive miser model: Both emphasize use of heuristics
Problem space theory
2 characteristic features
- Heuristics are used to problem-solve due to limited processing capacity
- Algorithms are rarely used
Johnsohn-Laidts mental model theory
Main claim
When reasoning/problem-solving people contsruct mental models that represent the problem/situation at hand
Johnsohn-Laidts mental model theory
Competing theory and how it differs
Tripartite model: Focuses on cognitive processes and individual differences
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
Johnsohn-Laidts mental model theory
Major weakness
- Weak at rejecting responses people do not produce
- Processes involved in forming mental models are underspecified
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
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
Dual-system/process theory
Prior history
Mental model theory
Dual-system/process theory
Main claim
Distinguishes between 2 systems/processes: One intuitive system and one deliberate system
Dual-system/process theory
Competing theory and how it differs
Logical intuition model: Allows for logical and heuristic type 1 responses
Dual-system/process theory
Data supporting the theory
People exhibit less belief bias when they have more time
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
Dual-system/process theory
Similar theory and one of its features
Tripartite model: Also distinguishes between 2 broad classes of cognitive processes
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
Tripartite model
Prior history
High IQ participants perform better on deductive reasoning tasks. A model was needed to explains IQs impact on reasoning
Tripartite model
Main claim
DIstinguishes between autonomous (type 1) mind and algorithmic and reflective minds (type 2)
Tripartite model
Competing theory and how it differs
Mental model theory: Focuses on mental representations instead of cognitive processes
Tripartite model
Data undermining the theory
There is much overlap between rationality and intelligence (r=0.6) which the model assumes to be seperate
Tripartite model
Major strenght
Explains individual differences in reasoning
Tripartite model
Similar theory and one of its features
Dual-process models: Both theories distinguish between 2 broad types of cognitive processes
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
Multi-attribute theory
Main claim
Explains approximation to ideal decision-making with a 6-step model, rating each option on a number of attributes
Multi-attribute theory
Competing theory and how it differs
Elimination-by-aspect theory: People eliminate options by considering 1 attribute after the other
Multi-attribute theory
Data undermining the theory
When people choose between many flats, they first reduce the number by using simpler strategies, they satisfice
Multi-attribute theory
Application
People use this theory when choosing between relatively few options
Multi-attribute theory
SImilar theory and one of its features
Expected utility theory: Both are normative and focus on optimising the final outcome
Multi-attribute theory
2 characteristic features
- Every attribute has a different weight
- All attributes are used simultaneously
Support theory of judgment
Prior history
Based on the concept of availability heuristics
Support theory of judgment
Main claim
An event appears more or less likely depending on how it is described
Support theory of judgment
Competing theory and how it differs
Expected utility theory: Doesn’t allow for solution-irrelevant details to influence decision making
Support theory of judgment
Data supporting the theory
Subadditivity effect
Support theory of judgment
Major weakness
Doesn’t explain why providing an explicit description increases and event’s subjective probability
Support theory of judgment
Similar theory and one of its features
Prospect theory: The presentation of an event/question influences our judgments and decisions
Support theory of judgment
2 characteristic features
- We must distinguish between events and their description
- Predicts the subadditivity effect
Expected utility theory
Prior history
Normative theories assumption that people make rational decisions that they should be making
Expected utility theory
Main claim
When choosing between several options, we try to maximize utility (subjective value attached to an outcome
Expected utility theory
Competing theory and how it differs
Prospect theory: Doesn’t assume rational decision-making, but acknowledges framing, loss & risk aversion
Expected utility theory
Data undermining the thoery
The fact that risk and loss aversion exist
Expected utility theory
Major weakness
Cannot explain framing effects
Expected utility theory
Similar theory and one of its features
Game theory: Also proposes that people make rational decisions
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
Prospect theory
Prior history
Expected utility theories inability to explain framing and loss & risk aversion
Prospect theory
Main claim
People identify a reference pointrepresenting their current state. They treat losses and gains differently
Prospect theory
Competing theory and how it differs
Game theory: Proposes that people start making rational decisions when they get experience with a task
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
Prospect theory
Major strenght
Can explain sunk-cost effects, risk & loss
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
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
Greene’s dual-system theory of moral judgment
Prior history
On personal (compared to inpersonal) moral dilemmas, people make more deontological judgments
Greene’s dual-system theory of moral judgment
Main claim
Whether people make deontological or utilitarian judgment is based on which system is used
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
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
Greene’s dual-system theory of moral judgment
Major weakness
Oversimplified, participants making deontological judgments often process information relevant to ultilitarian judgments too
Greene’s dual-system theory of moral judgment
Similar theory and one of its features
Social intuitionist model: Allows that moral decisions are intuitive
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
Haidt’s social intuitionist model
Prior history
Rationalist models assume that moral judgment is caused by moral reasoning
Haidt’s social intuitionist model
Main claim
Moral judgment is quick and intuitive
Haidt’s social intuitionist model
Competing theory and how it differs
Dual-process theory: Allows for both intuitive and reflective processes
Haidt’s social intuitionist model
Data supporting htis theory
Dumbfounding: Sometimes people are unable to provide rational or logical explanations for their moral judgments
Haidt’s social intuitionist model
Application
Can explain why people with different political ideologies are polarized on moral topics
Haidt’s social intuitionist model
Similar theory and one of its features
Prospect theory: Also deemphasizes rational thinking
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
Relationship regulation theories
Prior history
Rational models theory
Relationship regulation theories
Main claim
Moral motives, judgments and behavior regulate social relationships
Relationship regulation theories
Data supporting the theory
Interpersonal obligations are sometimes conceptualized in moral terms
Relationship regulation theories
Competing theory and how it differs
Dual-system theory: Explains moral judgments as influenced by intuitive and reflective processes
Relationship regulation theories
Major Strenght
States that morality functions to sustain social relationships which can explain a broad domain of psychosocial phenomena
Relationship regulation theories
Similar theory and one of its features
Social intuitionist model: Moral reasoning is done for socially strategic purposes
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
Moral foundations theory
Prior history
Social intuitionist model: One of the theories assumptions is that the model is true
Moral foundations theory
Main claim
There are 5 psychological moral foundations on which people and cultures build their systems of morality
Moral foundations theory
Competing theory and how it differs
Dual-systems theory: States that moral judgments are influenced by 2 types of cognitive processes
Moral foundations theory
Data supporting the theory
Conservatives tend to use the binding foundations more than liberals
Moral foundations theory
Major strenght
Explains cultural variations in moral judgments
Moral foundations theory
Similar theory and one of its features
The theory of 3 ethics - Divinity, autonomy and community
Moral foundations theory
2 characteristic features
- Binding foundations - Loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion and purity/degradation
- Individualizing foundations - Care/harm and fairness/cheating
