Quiz 4 Flashcards
judgment
the process through which people draw conclusions from the evidence they encounter
evidence
sometimes loosely defined- could be good or bad
frequency estimate
estimate of the frequency of the event
Example: What is the frequency of a monster in a room?
Attribute substitution
we make a decision about frequencies without using frequency estimate as evidence
we rely on easily assessed information to make a judgement- substituting information
attribution substitutions
often rely on information obtained through heuristics: efficient strategies that usually lead to the correct answer
types of heuristics
availability heuristic
representativeness heuristic
affect heuristic
effort heuristic
availability heuristic
the ease with which examples come to mind is a proxy for frequency or likelihood
- asked whether it is going to rain tomorrow, you are going to think about if it rained a lot today, which is used as a proxy
- who do you listen to the most? you list the one you were just listening to
heuristic errors
-are there more car or plane crashes- if plane crashes happen you hear it all over the news, but there are more car accidents
-are there more words with s in 1 or 3 position, you will choose 1 because it is not readily available, when in fact there are more with s in the 3rd position
ease of remembering events impacts judgment
Schwarts et al. (1991) study on assertiveness
- remembering 5 is easy, remembering 10 is more difficult, people that came up with more had to think harder, so they felt they were not very assertive, the group that had to think of five, the ease of recalling them made them feel assertive
why do we overestimate the frequency of rare events?
Rare events are more notable, we will remember them
representative heuristic
assumption that resemblance to the prototype reflects the probability
-often relies on the assumption of homogeneity
is this man on the train more likely to be a professor or farmer?
you think, professor, but realistically, there are around 50,000 professors and 262,000 farmers in Canada; based on statistics, he is more likely to be a farmer. the information isnt informative, but rely on visuals about him looking like a professor.
categories
when you learn someones category, you usually assume a lot about them. it leads to incorrect stereotypes
“man who” arguments
someone who knows someone who did something, it is prevalent.
a smoker who ran a marathon- they are an exception
“gambler’s fallacy”
the coin is tails for 11; you have to bet what the next flip is going to be; people will say heads because there have already been so many tails, not recognizing that it is an independent event, so the events before don’t impact it. we think there is an effect there.
covariation
x and y (2 events) “covary” if the presence (or magnitude) of X can be predicted by the presence (or magnitude) of Y, and vice versa
positive example of covariation
age and year/level in university- typically the older you are the higher year/level you are.
negative example of covariation
exercise and risk of heart attacks- the more you exercise, the less likely you are to have a heart attack
covariations and causation
often, covariations are incorrectly assumed, and causal claims are improperly made
example of covariations and causation
astrology and personality- people that are libra have these personality traits- you think you know alot about them because of their zodiac symbol
confirmation bias
tendency to be more alert to evidence that confirms one’s beliefs than to evidence that challenges them
example of confirmation bias
your friend is a libra, so you focus more on their personality traits that align with libras, confirming your own bias/conclusions, leaving out the traits that are like the other zodiac signs
you fear dogs, so you pay attention to the vicious dogs, making them more available, reconfirming your belief, not paying attention to the adorable, gentle ones
base- rate information
information about how frequently something generally occurs
diagnostic information
does an individual case belong to a category
Kahneman and Tversky (1973)
told participants there are 70 lawyers and 30 engineers in a group. given this description, which group does someone who “likes carpentry, sailing, math puzzles; dislikes politics” belong to?
- closer to prototype of engineer, when in reality, many lawyers have these likes and dislikes, the most informative thing is how frequently these things happen
base rates use
we can and do use base rates well when base rates are all we have, but when diagnostic information is also given, people neglect the base rate
base rates: conjunction fallacy
the false assumption that a combination of conditions is more likely than either condition by itself
probability of A will always be higher than the probability of A and B.
why do we use a heurisitc if they keep misleading us?
they usually work, are efficient, they are good
secondary thinking system
another path, we can engage to answer more complex, effort-requiring questions
dual process model
type 1: fast and automatic thinking
vs.
type 2: slower, effortful thinking
type 1
reliance on heuristics
base rate neglect affected by type of data
emphasizing randomness
type 2
more likely to be correct
education encourages
the cognitive reflection test
assesses individuals’ ability to suppress an intuitive and spontaneous (type 1) wrong answer in favour of a reflective and deliberative (type 2) correct answer
types of reasoning
induction and deduction
induction
process through which you forecast about new cases based on observed cases
deduction
process through which you start with “givens” and ask what follows these premises
confirmation bias
a greater sensitivity to confirming evidence and a tendency to neglect disconfirming evidence
example of confirmation bias
participants given three numbers (2,4,6) and tasked with figuring out the rule.
test new trios to determine the rule (8,10,12) or does the number just have to be higher than the previous (7,8,9)
result of confirmation bias
participants generally only sought to confirm the rules they were proposing
disconfirming evidence
information inconsistent with one’s belief is often scrutinized for flaws
example of disconfirming evidence
Gamblers believe their strategy was good but the loss was a ‘fluke’ or ‘coincidence’
belief perseverance
tendency to maintain belief even when given undeniable disconfirming evidence
logic
confirmation bias suggests a failure to be logical
can demonstrate using categorical syllogisms and conditional statements
categorical syllogisms
logical arguments containing 2 premises and a conclusion
conditional statement
if X, then Y
valid syllogisms
All M are B. All D are M. Therefore, all D are B.
Invalid syllogisms
All P are M. All S are M. Therefore, all S are P.
All students are in class. All profs are in class. Therefore, all profs are students
belief bias
people’s assessment of syllogism’s conclusion is affected by how consistent the conclusion is with their beliefs
syllogism conclusion
although believable, conclusion is not logical from the two premises.
example of syllogism conclusion
all birds can fly. pigeons can fly. pigeons are birds.
we cannot conclude that pigeons are birds based on the two sentences.
illogical decisions
four-card task
four-card task
“if a card has a vowel on one side, then it must have an even number on the other side.” (A,6,J,7) Which cards to turn over? A and 7, as these could disprove the rule
principle of utility maximization
we should be choosing the option with the greatest expected value (balance of costs and benefits)
utility
the value that you place on a particular outcome (+/-)
risk
probability of a negative outcome
decisions
often do not maximize utility
risk aversive
when evaluating gains
risk seeking
when faced with a loss
framing
depending on how a problem is framed, decisions will widely differ.
ex. rare disease programs- all have the same outcome
status quo bias
a preference for the current state of affairs (keep things as is)
transaction costs
time, effort, and resources needed for change (want to minimize)
optimal defaults
automatically place people into options that have the greatest benefit
optimal defaults example
401K- when put in automatically people stayed, when they had to opt in, less people did it.
endowment effect
tendency to overvalue what one has in hand
ex. you get something for free, someone wants to buy it, but now that they have asked to buy it you value it higher
sunk cost effect
tendency to continue a task once investing time, energy and resources
utility vs. reason
Our decisions might be based on reason instead of maximizing utility
- we like to make decisions we feel good about because they are reasonable and justified.
ex. custody of child
emotional decisions
a lot of decisions are powerfully influenced by emotions- this is the reason we have them
somatic markers
ex. gut feeling used as an indicators of risk
affective forecasting
we predict future emotions to help with decisions
does affective forecasting work?
Valence is usually right (happy vs. sad), but magnitude and duration is usually wrong
what is a problem?
when you are faced with an issue to solve
problem solving
the effort directed toward finding ways to obtain one’s goals (how do you cross the river)
what can problems be?
well or ill defined
routine or nonroutine
well defined problem
crossing a river (clear)
ill defined
being happy or being wealthy (unclear)
routine problem
familiar with solution (calculating change as a cashier)
nonroutine problem
more difficult, solution is not apparent (how do we stop the spread of misinformation)
problem solving success
- heuristics, experience, insight, and creativity
problem space
the set of all states that can be reached in solving the problem
- we need strategies to reduce the space
ex. orcs and hobbits
hill-climbing strategy
at each step in solving a problem, choose the option that moves you in the direction of your goal
means-end analysis
- what means do i have to make my current state more like my goal state?
problem-solving heuristics
sometimes drawing the problem out is much more effective
problem-solving and experience
general heuristics are great, but often, we use out past experiences
analogical reasoning
we compare a current problem with a past problem we have already solved through
ex. doctor statement is influenced by the dictator statement
problem-solving via analogy
spontaneously engaging in analogical reasoning is actually quite rare, but problem solving can be improved by encouraging people to focus on the deep structure at initial learning of the problem
relational learning
learning new information in relation to things you already know- increase analogical reasoning only at the time of the learning- has to happen during encoding
experts
in specific fields, use analogies more than novices
problem-solving via subgoals
problems can be broken up into subproblems- again more likely in experts
- ex. chess master can reproduce the board almost perfectly, but novice is missing a lot, every five pieces the master took a break, they think about the plays that are possible, using it as a strategy to remember
approaching problems
a given problem can be approached in various ways, guiding (or limiting) the solutions you come up with
functional fixedness
the tendency to be rigid in thinking about an objects function
example of functional fixedness
ex. not having matches in the box reduced the FF of perceiving the box as just a container instead of also a potential shelf
problem-solving set
collection of beliefs and assumptions a person makes about a problem
Einstellung
a problem solver’s beliefs, habits, and preferred strategies
creativity
some people are flexible in approached to problems and others rely on routine.
prerequisites for creativity
highly creative people share:
- great knowledge and skill in the domain
- certain personality traits (ex. willingness to take risks, ignore criticism)
- motivated by the pleasure of the work, not external rewards
- “In the right place at the right time”
Wallas (1926)
argues that creative thought proceeds in four stages
not entirely supported by evidence, but not wrong either
Wallas’ 4 stages
preparation
incubation
illumination
verification
preparation
information gathering
incubation
conscious break
illumination
insight emerges; “Aha!” moment
verification
confirmation that the new idea leads to a solution
creativity and taking a break
- sometimes increase chances of solving a problem requiring creativity
- could be “mind wandering” helping related ideas come to mind because of spread activation
- or… fatigue in seeking a solution could be relieved with a break
nature of creativity
creative people are not much different than others
creative people are often…
experts in the field theyre most creative in
willing to take risks
motivated
creative people are probably good at
convergent thinking
divergent thinking
forward flow
convergent thinking
An ability to spot ways in which seemingly distinct ideas might be interconnected.
assessed using Remote Associates Task
divergent thinking
an ability to move one’s thoughts in novel, unanticipated directions
forward flow
How much one’s current thinking breaks away from past thoughts
