Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

10) Thinking & Reasoning (SH) (Problem solving (Planning, Cognitive…

- - - - Problem: most people don't make judgements to maximise utility (idealistic)
      - People choose between uncertain likelihoods by contrasting expected utility values
    - - Attempt to explain what people actually do whether rational or not
      - Context, interaction & environment as fundamental components
    - - Loss/risk adverse
      - Problems
        
        Social & moral issues not considered
        
        De-emphasises individual differences (high self esteem, narcissist (high self regard; low sensitivity to punishment; high sensitivity to reward)
      - Reference point = current state (hungry VS full) + probability rating = subjective (overestimated low probability events & vise versa)
        
        = subjective utility of decision outcome
      - Decisions based on probability of risk (potential value of loss or gains), not consequence.
      - Heuristics involved
        
        Sunk-Cost Effect (go to concert sick?)
        
        Investing resources; continue to pursue course even though it has proved unsuccessful
        
        Framing Effect
        
        Decision influenced by situational aspects (how problem is worded)
  - - - Complex & time consuming process of identification, weighing, rating to create total utility: especially if multiple attributes are considered
      - Ideal strategy
    - - Decision making bounded by environment (info) and cognitive constrains (attention)
      - Satisficing: rational within constraints
      - Elimination of aspects
        
        Considering one attribute at a time
  - - - Base-rates
        
        The bias = base-rate neglect
        
        Used when there is causal relevant information Eg. 80% of blue cabs appear blue because faded paint means 20% of blue cabs appear green
        
        Motivation to take note of base-rates: Eg. health issues (10% error)
      - Taxi Cab Problem (85% green, 15% blue)
        
        Witness is correct 20% of the time
        
        How likely was the cab blue? 41%
      - Conjunction Fallacy
        
        More probable on own then the two parts of information together
        
        The Linda Problem: The information given is representative of a bank teller & an activist
      - Supports dual processing
        
        Use of a secondary task reduced performance: suggest cognitive demanding processes are involved in solving the problem
        
        Ignoring base rates = less confident with answer
        
        Solving Linda Problem correctly took longer: System 2 process at work
        
        Intuitive logic: detecting conflict in their answer; unconscious processing of base rates
        
        Base-rate processing may be a Type 1 processes?: more flexible that previously thought
    - - Basing a decision on probability of an occurrence by using ease of which it comes to mind
      - Biases
        
        Irretrievability of instances
        
        Effectiveness of search set
      - Cognitive load experiments used to increase availability heuristic (Type 1 response)
    - - What you fear most is judged as most prevalent cause of death
      - Emotions cloud ability to judge properly
    - - Adaptive tool box: can be very accurate
      - Recognition heuristic "Cologne or Herne"
        
        Stopping rule: discrimination between two cities
        
        Decisions rule: make a decision
        
        Search rule: search memory
        
        Controversially: argued that when someone recognises one thing and not the other, then the search stops there
        
        Yet people often consider why they recognise something (Type 2? awareness of heurisitc?)
    - - Depends on
        
        Likely outcome & processing demands
        
        Individual differences: intelligence & best heuristic chosen
        
        Nature of task and no. of heuristics available
      - Natural Frequency Hypothesis
        
        Better at frequencies > fractions/% (rewrite Linda problem = drop of conjunction fallacy by 2/3rds)
        
        However: this might make underlying structure of problem is more apparent
        
        When this is controlled: no sig difference between frequency & probability versions
  - - - Value of intuitive judgement: heuristics as tools of efficiency used by expert decision makers
      - 'Real world settings': Pilots, Doctors, Nurses, Jurors, Firefighters
    - - High pressure situations = match situation to acquired patterns
      - Limitations
        
        Lacks detail (situational/individual differences?)
      - Use of experience in the form of a catalouge of patterns
      - Unexpected situations: imagine an outcome
        
        Implict: pattern matching
        
        Explicit/deliberate: mental stimulation
    - - Unconscious thinking is superior to conscious thinking
        
        Integration of large amounts of info
        
        Less contraints
      - Complex cases best if involve conscious & unconscious thought (Type 1 + Type 2)
  - - - Selecting an option from many possibilities
      - Focus: Importance
      - Consequences: assess quality/success of our decisions
    - - Focus: Accuracy
      - Deciding likelihood of event using incomplete info
- - - - Deductive: Reasoning from general to specific