SL - Reliability of cognitive processes - biases

Question 1

Jacowitz and Kahneman (1995)

Answer 1

Aim ->
To investigate the anchoring bias

Method -> 53 ppts (‘calibration group’) estimated fifteen quantities and stated how confident they were in their estimates. From these estimates, a low and high anchor was calculated for each quantity. The remaining ppts were also asked to estimate the quantities but were first given an anchor and asked whether they thought the quantity was higher or lower than the anchor value. Then they were to estimate the quantity and finally state how confident they were in their answer. All ppts had a mixture of high and low anchors.

Results -> Estimates given following a low anchor were
significantly lower than estimates given after a high anchor. The influence of a high anchor was significantly larger than the influence of a low anchor. There was an inverse relationship between the size of the anchoring effect and the confidence ppts had in their estimates (the less confident someone was the more of an impact the anchor had on their response).
Conclusion -> The anchoring bias exists and impacts ppts estimations. High anchors might have more of an effect than low anchors because there is an absolute lower value (zero) but an unlimited upper value for any given quantity.

Evaluation ->

✔ good reliability and validity -> Consistent findings across a range of different types of quantities indicate both good reliability and good internal validity. A decent sample size also points to good reliability. This means that we can have high trust in these results
✔ n/s ~ good positive evaluative point

❌ Validity challenged -> The setting was artificial, thus there was low ecological validity. The task was different from an everyday task and therefore lacked mundane realism. Lowers the trust we can have in these results as in a more realistic event with a more realistic setting the results may differ
❌ n/s ~ good negative evaluative point

Question 2

Hamilton and Gifford (1976)

Answer 2

Aim ->
To investigate the illusory correlation

Method -> participants were shown 39 statements about named individuals and their behaviour. There were 26 statements about members of Group A (18 positive, 8 negative) and 13 about members of Group B (9 positive, 4 negative). They were made aware that Group A was a larger group in the population and thus that there would be more statements about them.
After this, ppts had to rate Group A and B members for 20 personality traits - such as ‘agreeableness’ and ‘generosity’ - and to determine whether certain behaviours were more likely to have been committed by a member of Group A or someone from Group B.

Results -> Ppts attributed more negative social traits to members of Group B. Ppts attributed significantly more desirable behaviours to members of Group A.

Conclusion -> They concluded that this was because ‘paired distinctiveness’ - the coinciding of a minority (Group B) member with a minority (negative) behaviour - created in participants the illusion of a correlation between minority groups and negative behaviours.

Evaluation ->

✔ n/s ~ good positive evaluative point
✔ n/s ~ good positive evaluative point

❌ n/s ~ good negative evaluative point
❌ n/s ~ good negative evaluative point

Question 3

Confirmation bias

Answer 3

The tendency to seek out information to confirm what you already believe. Negative actions by a minority group member will be added to the stereotype but positive actions won’t be sufficiently considered as evidence against it. We prefer to be ‘right’ about stereotypes than accurate!

Question 4

Illusory correlation

Answer 4

The tendency to incorrectly identify correlations where there are none.

Question 5

Anchoring bias

Answer 5

The tendency to rely too heavily upon, or “anchor,” on one trait or piece of information when making decisions (for example, basing your estimation of the distance between Earth and the moon due to a given anchor).

Question 6

Paired distinctiveness

Answer 6

the coinciding of a minority (Group B in H&G (1980)) member with a minority (negative) behaviour - created in participants the illusion of a correlation between minority groups and negative behaviours.

Question 7

Intuitive thinking

Answer 7

Can be considered as system 1 thinking. Requires no conscious effort to produce quick and ‘simple’ responses and judgment. Liable to being tricked: Palmer (1975) and Jacowitz and Kahneman (1995). Created through evolution: quick decisions are often needed (ie deciding to run because a predator is running towards you).

Question 8

Rational thinking

Answer 8

Can be considered as system 2 thinking. Requires conscious effort and it produces rational and logical responses and judgment. Is not easily tricked but system 1 is typically used as system 2 requires significant amounts of energy.