Q&A Flashcards
Explain the difference between Treisman’s and Wolfe’s models of attention selection in simple terms. Explain how their approaches to selecting salient objects differ.
Both models try to describe how attention as a process works in selecting something from the visual field which does not stand out perceptually right away (i.e. is not salient on its own). Both models describe that different features in the visual field such as colour, orientation, shape at some point get combined in ‘overall’ objects map/field.
Treisman then argues that attention is a process where a search light like beam scans this map/field and selects the relevant object for further processing, so working directly on this ‘overall’ objects map/field.
Wolfe on the other hand argues that without attention this ‘overall’ objects map/field is the sum of peaks/salience in maps/field for separate features such as colour, orientation, shape etc. Which, without attention, can result in an ‘overall’ map where nothing really stands out. To him attention is not a process that searches the ‘overall’ map, but assigns more weights to certain feature maps/field (e.g. colour), resulting in a different ‘overall’ map where an attended object does stand out.
So the models differ in terms of where the attention process acts on: either on the overall map according to Treisman, or to certain feature maps according to Wolfe.
Clarify how attention can lead to ‘blind perception’ when it’s too strong and ‘attention grabbing’ when it’s too weak. Give examples.
Important in this is to talk about attention from the perspective of the current relevant task. So if you are focused on counting how many people in white shirts pass a ball to each other, while another team of people in black shirts do the same, you are blind to someone in a black gorilla suit passing by, this is called inattentional blindness and an example of where attention is too strong.
The other way around, when you are tasked to report on the orientation of a green target that will appear, being distracted and thus slower in responding to that green target by a task-irrelevant red target is an example of attentional capture, where attention is too weak.
What is the difference between a bias and a heuristic?
Are “a bias” and “a heuristic” synonyms?
Are “biased thinking” and “heuristical thinking” synonyms?
He argues that they are the same, but it depends on which literature you read and some people might have a nuanced, usually quite semantically based, argument for why they would be different.
Are bounded rationality and irrationality the same? If no, how do they differ?
Bounded suggests there is still rationality left, irrationality suggest there is not. The idea of bounded rationality comes close to irrationality, but it suggest that being rational is the standard, but it is bounded by all sorts of capacity limiting factors, such as being in a hot state, having a full memory already etc. and therefore your rationality becomes bounded.
The important things on the dual system theories
The actual distinction between the two systems is quite hard to make and there might be overlap between systems across different dual system theories.
How can we apply the theory of the power of inattentional blindness (Simons & Chabris) in situations where people choose unhealthy options simply because they do not notice the healthier alternatives?
It would require you to make the healthy options closer in appearance and task-relevance to the unhealthy options.
A ‘nice’ example I think in this, is the somewhat recent change Coca Cola did to their branding of Cola Zero. It used to be a black can with red lettering, and regular coke would be red with white lettering. Now Cola Zero is also in a red can, but with black letters. For someone to consider Cola Zero the new can is closer to their perhaps regular and default choice of a regular Cola.
Explain that ideomotor effects are unintended, yet controllable processes using the Simon effect (Melnikoff & Bargh, 2018)
The Simon effect tells us that if we are asked to respond to the colour blue with a right hand button press, we are quicker if we present that colour also in the right visual field. This is an automatic, unintended quicker response that everyone shows, but the speed of the response can be easily controlled.
How are the attribute substitution model of heuristic judgment and “biases resulting from substitution of non-existensional for extensional attributes” similar to or different from the representative bias and/or the prototype heuristic?
Attribute substitution is the general process of replacing (unconsciously) difficult to apply decision rules with more simpler ones (i.e., heuristics). Using a representative bias or prototype heuristic are examples of using attribute substitution.
Example: rather than using the likelihood of someone being a chess player based on actual rates, we use stereotypical characteristics of a chess player (somewhat bookish/nerdy) and assess how much of those characteristics are present in the person being assessed.
In the book Nudge, the authors talk about organ donations. Explain why switching to the default of being a donor is not always the best option.
It mainly is an issue when you make the switch from one default (opt-in, default not a donor) to another (opt-out, default a donor); people are made aware of their choice of being an organ donation again when introducing a switch. When that default then becomes being a donor, you get an initial strong ‘don’t tell me what to do (with my body)’ response, often termed reactance. Over time this will dissipate. People forget that there is a default, resulting in overall larger organ donor population.
Explain the overarching theme of the article of Kahneman
The overarching theme of Kahnemann is accessibility of things: how easy something comes to mind; you make judgments and decisions based on those decision rules you can easily access. I.e. oftentimes using a heuristic is more readily available when making a decision. The result is a process we call attribute substitution: replacing a difficult decision rule(s) for a simple shortcut. Likewise, losses are more imagineable, thus accessible and this explains prospect theory and makes a loss of 20 euros hurt more than a win of 20 euros makes you happy.
