Psyc 358 1st Edition Lecture 25Outline of Last Lecture II. Problem Solvinga. What counts as a problemb. How do we solve the problem?i. Multiple problem solvingii. RepresentationOutline of Current Lecture III. Human Reasoninga. Promoting analogical transferb. What is reasoningc. Category based reasoningCurrent LectureDay 25 – Human ReasoningQuestion of the Day: What is the reasoning and how do we do it?Analogical reminding driven by surface not deep structure-Gick and Holyaoak (1980) on analogical retrieval (fig. 12.15)Success in solving the tumor problem-Base line (no study phase) ~10%-Studied an analogical source (Spontaneous access) ~30%-Analogical source plus hint >75%-Key point: spontaneous noticing of analogy is hard/rare-Unless there is surface similarity (Holyaoak&Koh, 1987)-Apparent cause is access failure-Other possible reasons?-Objections (naturalistic vs. lab?)How to promote analogical transfer?-Gick and Holyoak’s (1983) second classic result-Compare two analogous stories prior to test  promotes spontaneous transfer power of comparison-Significantly improves people’s ability to solve the problem. Brings people up to 50% of solving the problemThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.-Schema induction-Comparison leads to highlighting/abstraction of relational content-Gentner, Loewenstein& Thompson conducted research on megotiation strategies-Comparison of cases promoted strategy transfer (analogical encoding)-Worked better than isolated cases-Worked better than abstract principleWhat is reasoning?-Going beyond the information given; establishing beliefs-In a particular situation, what you are observing, reasoning is the processwhere you determine what you can believe in beyond what you have been given, the process of finding out what is true and what isn’t-Reasoning by logic (deductive)-More of a current path, we have a set of tool/recipes that gives us certain conclusions that can be made. This is knowledge on how to think about things from some evidence to determine what else to be true. Reasoning by logic-Reasoning by likeness (inductive)-Essentially a process of taking info about a situation and finding out how the target’s thought process and seeing how it like ours, seeing connections between things we are currently seeing and what have seen before. Reasoning by likenessReasoning from Likeness-Reasoning by analogy or similarity to a particular example in domain knowledge-Retrieve and apply relevant stored examples-Exact surface match (Just like something experienced before, easy to comfortably expect what will happen)-Exact overall match to a case-Match to a similar case-Match/fit to a category (inferences can still be made and even if something can’t be matched perfectly, a category can be matched in reasoning from likeness)Category-based Reasoning-Inference from categorization-It’s a dogIt should have 4 legs-Inference from category generalization-It’s not a dog, but it is like a dog; dogs have 4 legsit should have 4 legs-Category-based induction: Inference from one category to another-Premise: dogs have property X-Conclusion: Cats have property X?-Principles underlying argument strength-Similarity-based: Typicality-If cats are similar to dogs, people believe that properties belonging to dogs are also applied to cats-Coverage based: Monotonicity, diversity-Monotonicity-The more premises you have, the more evidence you havethat the thing might be true of the similar thing-If something is true of dogs and turtles, it is more likely to be true of cats.-Diversity-If something is true across a wider range of examples, it is more likely to be true of something else(but culturally dependent…)Reasoning by logic-Logical forms can be made of real world scenarios-Logical arguments-And, or, not-Truth conditions-Reasoning consists of valid steps for moving from premises to conclusions -Formal, universal nature-Dependence only on the form (not the content) of the statement-Are we good at this? Do we use it a lot? Is this how we think? Only for puzzles?-Clearly we are not foolproof logicians-Failures as carelessness, bad initial representation, resource limitationsCategorical syllogisms-What conclusions follow from the premises?-Valid argument Invalid argumentAll P’s are Q’s All P’s are Q’sAll R’s are P’s All R’s are Q’sTherefore, all R’s are Q’s therefore all R’s are P’sParticipants routinely make invalid conclusions-Especially with abstract termsSystematic patterns of illogical performance-Belief bias-Inability to inhibit content-based reasoning (likeness vs. logic)Examples:All nightmares are dreamsAll experiences are nightmaresAll experiences are dreams?All dogs are animalsAll Cats are DogsAll cats are animals?-Atmosphere effects-Some A are B-Some B are C-Some…Primed to accept conclusions with same quantifier as premises (why?)-Conversion errorsAll A are B =? All B are AReasoning about conditionals-If X, then Y-Many of the same phenomena-Difficulty with abstract forms-Belief bias-Possible explanation-Conversational use vs. logical use of operators-Sausage OR bacon is on the plate-Could there be both?-If you give me a dollar, then you wont get hit-Is there another way to not get hit?-Could you still get hit?Wason’s selection task (figs. 13.13-17)-“IF a card has a vowel on one side, it must have an even number on the other side-Which cards must be turned over to put this rule to the test-IFF?-What about partial logical ability?-Modus ponens IF P, then QPTherefore Q-Modus tollens IF P, the QNot QTherefore not PGrigggs and Cox (1982)-If a person is drinking beer they must be over 19 years of age-Drinking a beer-16 years of age-Drinking a coke-22 years of