Psych 340 Final Flashcards
What is the Dual Code Theory for Knowledge Presentation?
Paivio (1969): Mental representations are coded in two manners
-Analog (analogy) Codes: sensory images (sights, sounds, tastes)
-Symbolic Codes: words (inner voice)
Participants were shown a rapid sequence of images or words and were later asked to recall them; serial recall or free recall
-For visual images, free recall was better
-For words, serial recall was better
VISUAL IMAGERY IS ANALOG CODES
Image-Percept Equivalence
When the construction of visual objects are the same as they are perceived.
What three phenomena were used to observe this equivalence?
Mental Rotation, Scaling (zooming in), and scanning
Mental Rotation: Researched by Shepard and Metzler: participants were presented with pairs of 3-D objects and asked if they were the same (goal was to have them mentally rotate the object to determine if they were the same).
Results: The time it took to answer was linearly related to the amount of rotation needed (same for people who held objects in hands). Response times took longer if object was more complex.
Scaling (Zooming In): Kosslyn (1975-76)participants were asked to imagine the following animals in pairs:
-rabbit-elephant
-rabbit-fly
-rabbit- elephant sized fly
-rabbit- fly sized elephant
Results: Answers about smaller animal of pair took longer (same applies to smaller features)
Image Scanning: Kosslyn (1978): participants had to memorize a ficticious map of an island. When given an object found on the island, participants needed to mentally scan to that object (map was not longer present).
Results: The longer the distance was on the map, the longer the scan took.
PEOPLE ARE USING VISUAL PERCEPTUAL PROCESSES WHEN IMAGINING.
Proposition Code Theory
Imagery is not coded and realized via the visual system, but is stored as generic cognitive “knowledge” or proposition (meaning).
Difference between Dual Code Theory and Proposition Code Theory
Information is coded and realized via visual system with the Dual Code Theory but is not with the Proposition Code Theory
Kerr (1983)
Cognitive Process is not visual. Developed experiments similar to Kosslyn’s (scanning, scaling, rotating) for tactile sensation and tested blind people.
Results: Found the exact same results except their ability to “imagine” could not be based on visual processing since they had never had vision
Intons-Peterson (1992)
Participants were asked questions about sounds:
-is purring of a cat lower pitch than a clocks ticking (both were similar in pitch)
-is purring of a cat lower pitch than a telephone ringing (both were far apart in pitch)
Results: If pitch was similar, it took a shorter amount of time to answer than it did if the pitches were far apart
Reed (1974)
Participants were briefly shown an image and then asked if there was a shape in the image
Results: Participants were terrible at this. Proves that we cannot re-create the image or re-examine it
Chambers and Reisberg (1985)
Participants were briefly shown ambiguous images and then asked if they could re-create the image as something else (duck vs rabbit).
Results: Participants were terrible at it again. This supports that we cannot re-create or re-examine an image.
Where is the focus for the current Dual-Code Theory and the Proposition Code Debate? What is the science telling us about LTM, STM, WM, Imagining, and Perception?
The focus is on neuroscience but newer research counters old research.
Neuroscience is telling us that many of the same brain areas are mediating these processes and there needs to be an effort to reduce these concepts to the necessary few.
Difference between reasoning and logic
Reasoning is the process of finding support for a conclusion, or generating a conclusion based on evidence as well as finding reasons or causes; understanding the relationships between objects or events.
Logic is the process of reasoning that involves explicitly identifying what is given (reasons or statements of fact) and explicitly determining all possible meanings of those “facts”, and then exhaustively all that is (logically) possibly given to the truth of all given facts combined.
What is Inductive Reasoning?
It is generalizing from particular instances
What is deductive reasoning?
It is using general knowledge to make inferences about a specific case
Possibilities and Certainties regarding inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning means that conclusions are only possibilities (might be true)
Deductive reasoning means that conclusions are true (must be true)
Inductive Reasoning (might be true) Examples
- Extrapolations from known information
- Predictions of the future, based on past performance
- Extending features of some members of the group to the rest of the group
Deductive Reasoning (must be true) Examples
- Definitional Truths
- Mathematical Truths
- Logical Inferences (if…then logic)
Main difference between Inductive and Deductive Reasoning
“from small to big” is inductive
“big to small” is deductive
What are the other differences between inductive and deductive reasoning?
- Possibilities and Certainties: might be true, must be true
- Adding more premises or examples: induction makes more possible or falsifies and deduction does NOT change the truth or falsehood
- Creating new information of not: induction generates new knowledge and deduction does not create new knowledge (only makes implied knowledge explicit)
Is the induction-deduction distinction the same as the S1-S2 distinction? What are the good and bad things about induction?
The induction distinction is similar to the S1-S2 distinction because the good part about induction is that it automatically generates new knowledge which can be applied to current situations and allows us to be prepared (S1) while the bad thing about induction is that it can create a bias BUT this can be avoided through slow reasoning (S2).
In regards to deduction, what is the basic structure of a syllogism?
It is a logical argument with 2 premises and a conclusion that must be true is the premises are true
What is the difference between Syntax and Content?
Syntax is the operations: if, or, all, some, and, not
Content is the meaning and truth of the premises (and words used)
What needs to be the case for a conclusion to be Valid, and how is this
related to being “true” (can a conclusion be valid but not true, or true but not valid)?
In order for our conclusion to be valid, we must Explicitly and Exhaustively identify all possible meanings/inferences and all possible conclusions (activate your S2).
1. Make sure to identify all of the possible interpretations and inferences from the premises
(Are there any assumptions or other truths?)
2. Make sure the identify all possible situations (conclusions) where all of the premises are true in combination (Are there any other logical possibilities?)
Yes, a conclusion can be true but not valid.
What does it mean to say that validity of a deduction is all about syntax and not as much about content?
Validity depends on the syntax and logic while the truth depends on the content and it’s relationship with the real world.
What is a Circle Diagram?
Circle inside of circle
How would we graphically illustrate a Linear Syllogism?
if —–> then
If p… then q
Affirming the Antecedent
This is assumed to be sufficient only
What are the Ponens and Tollens and why are they important?
Modus Ponens is Affirming the Antecedent (if p then q)
Modus Tollens is Denying the Consequent (if not p, then not q)
Why does it matter if the conditional relationship is only necessary or only sufficient?
A necessary relationship is when not just on p will contribute to the q, multiple p’s have to contribute to q. A sufficient relationship is when p is enough to only contribute to q.
Why do people appear to “easily prove the rule” when looking for Ponens but tend to forget the Tollens?
People tend to look for proof to support what they believe to be true, once they find their proof, they stop looking. This creates confirmation bias.
What happens when we approach a situation of problem and does S1 or S2 kick in first?
S1 kicks in first and creates an initial judgement based on our existing knowledge. S2 kicks in when solutions presented in S1 do not work. S2’s effort is minimal.
Halo Effect
Assumptions involving unknown features are made in response to known features. An inferred association is made between objects (or concepts) because of shared or similar features
Example: Bob is personable—> personable is good—>generous is good—> Bob is generous
Conjunction Fallacy
The co-occurrence of two (or more) features erroneously gives us the impression that it is more likely, than a single feature. In reality, the co-occurrence of two events is ALWAYS less likely than the likelihood of the least likely of the two events.
Example: “The Linda Problem”