Video Module 26: Judgement Flashcards
system 1 thinking
- aka Type 1 Thinking
- A method of thinking we use to quickly generate answers using intuition
—System 1 thinking is guided by our “gut feelings” - intuitive
- automatic
- immediate
- using heuristics
system 2 thinking
- aka Type 2 Thinking
- A method of controlled thinking we use to generate calculated answers
- analytical
- controlled
- flexible
- cognitively demanding
- We can use system 2 thinking to monitor and evaluate system 1 thinking, but often we don’t because system 2 thinking is cognitively demanding
How do heuristics rely on attribute substitution?
We use heuristics to make quick judgements; attribute substitution is the method of using one, easier to judge attribute to make a judgement about a different, harder to judge attribute.
Heuristics may use attribute substitution to make quick decisions.
—e.g. using judgements of fluency to make judgements of similarity or frequency
heuristics
Methods of making quick judgements based on our past experiences; “rules of thumb” or mental shortcuts
—Heuristics are not always guaranteed to be correct, but often they’re “good enough”
1. availability
2. representativeness
3. anchoring
availability heuristic
- uses judgements of how easily things come to mind (how “available” things are in our mind) to make judgements about frequency or how common something is
—Due to the availability heuristic, we might make errors about the frequency or likelihood of an event if we are exposed to that event often (e.g. through social media, news coverage, etc.)
representativeness heuristic
making judgements about something on the basis of how ‘representative’ (typical) of a situation or category
- may result in:
1) base rate neglect
2) conjunction fallacy
3) gambler’s fallacy
anchoring heuristic
making judgements of numbers based on the first number we’re presented
- e.g. Guessing how tall a building is based on someone’s initial suggestion (“This building is at least 30 feet tall.” “Is the building 70 feet tall?” VS. “This building is less than 200 feet tall.” “Is the building 100 feet tall?”)
How may the availability heuristic cause fluency effects?
The availability heuristic uses fluency, or the ease at which we can process information, to make estimates about the frequency or probability of an event.
1) Schwartz et al. (1991): had participants list either 6 or 12 times in which they acted assertively; participants who listed only 6 times were likely to rate themselves as more assertive than participants who had to list 12
—Thinking of 6 times is relatively easier than thinking of 12 times; this ease tricks us into thinking that something must happen more often
2) Fox (2006): had participants list either 2 or 10 ways in which a course could be improved, then give an overall rating for the class
—Those who had to list 10 ways were likely to give higher ratings, because thinking of 10 distinct ways is more difficult than thinking of only 2; making it more difficult leads people to think that the course is better
3) Alter & Oppenheimer (2006): showed that fluently named stocks outperformed disfluent stocks
—Easier to pronounce fluent words (e.g. KAR) than disfluent words (e.g. GHR), making them likely easier to recall
base-rate neglect
the tendency of people to ignore the “prior probability” of an event (the base rate)
—People ignore the base rate of something occurring when they believe that a certain feature makes it more or less likely to occur
- a result of the representativeness heuristic
—e.g. “Starfire is tall, muscular, and a fast runner. Is she more likely to be a basketball player, or a teenager?”
—People may say that she is more likely to be a basketball player, ignoring the fact that there are more teenagers than basketball players on Earth. This is because Starfire is more “representative” of a basketball player
conjunction fallacy
the tendency of people to think two things occurring together is more likely than one thing occurring on its own
- due to the representativeness heuristic
—e.g. “Robin is young, flexible, athletic, and has a quick reaction time. He needs to travel often and communicates with his coach every day. Which is the most likely: ‘Robin is a runner’, ‘Robin is a college student,’ or ‘Robin is a gymnast and a college student.’?”
—People may mistakenly say that it is most likely that ‘Robin is a gymnast and a college student’ is the most likely scenario because Robin is most representative of a gymnast. Even though the most likely scenario is likely ‘Robin is a college student’ or ‘Robin is a runner,’ people might think the conjunction statement is most likely because it contains a class that Robin is representative of.
gambler’s fallacy
the failure of people to consider the independence of probabilistic events
- viewing chance as “self-correcting”
- due to the representativeness heuristic
- It’s common for gamblers to believe that they are “just about to win” because they’ve suffered many losses; they believe that a pattern of wins and losses (versus just a pattern of losses) is more “representative” of a randomised, chance event.
—e.g. people think that “HHHH” is less likely to occur than “HTHT” for coin flips, since “HTHT” looks more ‘representative’ of a coin flip, which is 50/50. However, both sequences are equally likely, since coin flipping is an independent event
How might anchoring cause us to make mistakes in judgement?
Anchoring is when we make judgements based on the first salient number we are presented with, regardless of the source of that number.
We might not always make mistakes due to anchoring, but anchoring can skew our thinking, which can cause us to make incorrect guesses.
—e.g. for 1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8, the average guess is 512. However, for 8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1, the average guess is 2250. This is because the beginning number(s) “anchor” our thinking, making us believe that the answer is higher or lower.
