Thinking and decision making

Question 1

what is thinking?

Answer 1

the function of thinking is to modify information: we break down information into lesser parts (analysis), bring different pieces of information together (synthesis), relate certain pieces of information to certain categories (categorization), make conclusions and inferences and so on. unlike other cognitive processes, thinking produces new information.

Question 2

what is decision-making?

Answer 2

is a cognitive process that involves selecting one of the possible beliefs or actions, that is making a choice between different alternatives.

Question 3

one model of thinking and decision making?

Answer 3

the dual processing model (system 1 and system 2)

Question 4

system 1 and 2

Answer 4

the dual processing model assumed to work by having system 1 first quickly and automatically processing intuitive answers when someone makes a judgement (Kahneman and Frederick). system 2 oversees system 1, acting as quality control, and can agree with the judgement or correct it.
system 1 and 2 are influenced by many factors, e.g. mood, the amount of time someone has to consider the evidence and the features of the task.

Question 5

biases in thinking and decision making

Answer 5

people use shortcuts and incomplete stratified strategies (heuristics). using heuristics leads to cognitive biases but they are also useful: 1)cognitive biases save energy, 2)heuristics are often based on experience, which means that you use them before and it worked reasonably well. “if it worked before, it will work now”

Question 6

common causes of intuitive thinking

Answer 6

• the tendency to focus on a limited amount of available information.
• the tendency to seek out information that confirms pre-existing beliefs (confirmation bias)
• the tendency to avoid the mental stress of holding inconsistent cognition (cognitive dissonance)

Question 7

anchoring bias

Answer 7

is the tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered when making a decision. Anchoring occurs when individuals use an initial piece of information to make subsequent judgements. it works both consciously and unconsciously

Question 8

confirmation bias

Answer 8

is the seeking or interpreting of evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs, expectations, or a hypothesis in mind. since confirmation biases are unintentional and automatic, they can contribute to stereotyping.

Question 9

study 1

Answer 9

langer et al. (1978) the dual processing model.

aim: to test the hypothesis that giving the pragmatic rule of giving a reason may be processed without conscious attention.
pps: 120 adults who used a copying machine in a university.
procedure: 2 different independent variables were manipulated. the users or the copying machines were randomly allocated into 6 different conditions. in the first case the request was to copy 5 pages in the second the request was to copy 20 pages. the other variable was the explanation given. in one, there was no explanation. In another, something that seemed like but was not an explanation was given. In the third version, a real explanation was given.
results: pps complied more readily with a minor request, without consideration of the reason, but a larger request led people to pay attention to the reason for the request and only complying if they accepted the reason.

Question 10

study 2

Answer 10

Alter et al. (2007) the dual processing model

aim: to investigate whether individuals employ system 2 rather than system 1 thinking when tasks become unusually difficult.
pps: 40 undergraduates
procedure: pps were asked to complete the three-item cognitive reflection test (CRT). the test for those in control (fluent) was printed in easy-to-read black Myriad Web 12-point font. the text for those in test condition (disfluent) was printed in a hard-to-read 10% grey italicized Myriad Web 10-point font. thus the independent variable was the font used, and the dependent variable was the number of errors in the test.
results: a significantly higher level of accuracy in the test (disfluent) condition (M=2.45) than control (fluent) condition (M=1.90). whereas 90% of the fluent condition answered at least one question incorrectly, only 35% did so in the disfluent condition.

Question 11

study 3

Answer 11

Hill et al. (2008) confirmation bias.

aim: to investigate the effect of expectations of guilt on interviewer questioning style (role of confirmation bias)
pps: 61 Scottish students. mean age:20.69
procedure: pps were randomly assigned to one of the following two conditions: the quilty expectation condition(N=30) to the innocent expectation condition(N=31). pps were provided with a scenario. pps in a guilty expectation condition were informed that “approx 4 out of 5 pps in the study look at the answer sheet” while those in innocent expectation condition were informed that “approx 4 out of 5 pps in the study do not look at the answer sheet”. all pps were told that they should prepare an interview with one of the pps to find out what had happened (rated on a scale from 0 to 6, where 0:innocent 6:guilty)
results: in accordance with expectations, pps in the guilty expectation condition formulated a significantly higher proportion of guilt-presumptive question than pps in the other condition, 28% and 16% respectively. the questions from the guilt-presumptive condition were also on average rated as significantly higher in guilt-presumptiveness. mean scores were 3.62 compared to 3.33 in the innocence-presumptive condition.

Question 12

study 4

Answer 12

Spaanjaars et al. (2014) experience and diagnostic anchors in referral letters

aim: to investigate whether diagnostic anchors, that is: diagnoses suggested in referral letters, influence judgements made by clinical psychologists with different levels of experience.
pps: 215 clinical psychologists average age 43.62, 24% male. 98 moderately experienced clinicians (2-10 years) and 126 very experienced clinicians (10+ years)
procedure: pps were randomly assigned to reading a referral letter suggesting either depression or anxiety, or no referral letter. they then read a psychiatric report about a depressed patient and gave a preliminary and final diagnosis.
results: the correctness of the diagnoses by very experienced clinicians was unaffected by the referral diagnosis. moderately experienced clinicians did use the suggested diagnosis as an anchor; when they had read a referral letter suggesting depressive complaints, they were more inclined to classify the patient with a depressive disorder.