Cognitive Psychology Exam 3 Logic and Decision Making1. Assumptions:• Individuals are motivated to maximize “utility” o Achieve the greatest pleasure (reward) with the least pain (cost)• Individuals must anticipate the outcome of alternative courses of action and calculate that which will be the best for them (what will have the greatest utility)• Rational individuals choose the alternative that is likely to give them the greatest satisfaction2. Rational Choice Decision Tree• To play or not to play?• All the factors influencing the decision have a utility value• By taking all the factors into consideration and calculating their utility, we can reach a rational decision3. Decision making using Bayes’ Theorem• A mathematical model that provides a method for evaluating hypotheses when new information changes the probabilities of certain outcomes occurring• Book example: Did the dog eat the roast on the table and should we punish him?o Prior Probability of guilt = 95% (based on the circumstances and knowing how much he likes roast)o Conditional probability of guilt (based on new info) = 2% (we put food in front of him and he eats it vigorously, not behavior of a well-fed dog)o Probability of effectiveness of punishment = 40%o Bayes’ Theorem calculated to help us decide if punishing vs. not punishing is more rational4. Limits• We obviously don’t do this all that often, if at all.• Example: Ultimatum game (Almakias & Weiss, 2012)o Your “partner” in the next room was given $50 and told to split it.o If you accept his offer, you both get the moneyo If you reject, no one gets it 5. Three problems with the Rational Choice model• We rarely have complete information• It is too costly and time consuming to make decisions this wayo We tend to be “cognitive misers” motivated to conserve cognitive resourceso Cognitive resources are, indeed, limited and exhaustible. So is our time. o Instead, we’re more likely to satisfice using heuristics Satisficing : Choosing a good-enough option, decision, or solution Heuristics : Fast and frugal decision rules that heavily weight partial information• Heuristics are not necessarily wrong (they can be adaptive), but they lead us to be biased in predictable ways6. Heuristics• Representative Heuristic o The tendency to judge the frequency of an event by the extent to which it “resembles” a typical caseo Judging the likelihood of things by how well they match prototypeso Ignoring base-rates example with librarian vs. salesperson• Availability Heuristic o The tendency to judge the frequency or likelihood of an event by the ease with which instances come to mindo More memorable events are misperceived as more likely• Anchoring & Adjustment o The tendency to judge the frequency or likelihood of an event by using a starting point and then adjusting up or down from this starting point7. Two basic categories of human reasoning• Deduction : Reasoning from general premises, which are known or presumed to be known, to more specific, certain conclusions• Induction: Reasoning from specific cases to more general, but uncertain, conclusions• Both deductive and inductive arguments occur frequently and naturally…both forms of reasoning can be equally compelling and persuasive, and neither form is preferred over the other8. Deduction Vs. InductionDeduction Induction Commonly associated with “formal logic”Commonly known as “informal logic,” or “everyday argument” Involves reasoning from known premises, or premises presumed to be true, to a certain conclusionInvolves drawing uncertain inferences, based on probabilistic reasoning The conclusions reached are certain, inevitable, inescapableThe conclusions reached are probable, reasonable, plausible, believable It is the form or structure of a deductive argument that determines its validity By contrast, the form or structure of an inductive argument has little to do with its perceived believabilityor credibility, apart from making the argument seem more clear or more well-organizedThe fundamental property of a valid, deductive argument is that if the premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily followsThe receiver (or a 3rd party) determines the worth of an inductive argument The conclusion is said to be “entailed” in, or contained in, the premises. Example: use of DNA testing to establish paternity Deductive reasoning is either “valid” or “invalid.” A deductive argument can’t be “sort of” valid Inductive reasoning enjoys a wide range of probability; it can be plausible, possible, reasonable, credible, etc.If the reasoning employed in an argument is valid and the argument’s premises are true then the argument is said to be sound The inferences drawn may be placed on a continuum ranging from cogent at one end to fallacious at the other. Intelligence 1. History of IQ testing • Identifying at-risk children and High Potential children o First test was Binet-Simon Test (France, 1905)o Adapted in English by Lewis Termano Historical context was compulsory education (1910) and large immigrant populationo Meant to both identify at risk children AND track students on career pathso IQ= Mental age/Actual age x 100• “Tracking” Army recruits in WWIo Terman adapted the Stanford-Binet test for adultso Used to place 1.7 million army during WWI (1916 for US)o “A” track recruits became officerso “D & E” unfit for officer training 2. Legacy of Early Testing• Biggest legacy:o Intelligence was comprised of multiple abilities but could still be reduced to a single score• Charles Spearman developed “factor analysis” to study different component parts of intelligenceo Intelligence can be thought of as being represented by two factors “g” = general intelligence “s” = specific abilityo People may have strengths in some domains over others, but 40-50% of the variability in scores can be explained by ”g”3. Spearman & Cattell’s “specific abilities” of intelligence- “g” factor• Correlations among the subjects of intelligence test reflect an underlying ability called general intelligence (g). • Verbal ability, mathematical ability, spatial ability, reasoning ability, and problem-solving ability are all general intelligence.4. Further Refining of “Intelligence”• Raymond Cattell (1905-) o Student of Spearman’so Modified Spearman’s intelligence theory to argue for two
View Full Document
Unlocking...