Hey! Have a BioCog exam coming up? No worries! I watched and summarised the cognitive psychology lectures so you don't have to :) I've also included plenty of visuals to help you internalize the information.
Note: this file only includes the notes for the cognitive psychology lectures. If you als...
Spiekbrief Cognitive Psychology - Cognitie en Perceptie (5072COPE6Y)
Test Bank for Cognitive Psychology 3rd Edition by E. Bruce Goldstein, Johanna C. van Hooff Chapter1-13
Samenvatting Cognitie & Perceptie
Tout pour ce livre (36)
École, étude et sujet
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU)
Psychologie
Biological & Cognitive Psychology (P_BBIOCOG)
Tous les documents sur ce sujet (8)
1
vérifier
Par: kwiecinskadaria97 • 3 année de cela
excellent and detailed notes
Par: notesbymau • 2 année de cela
Thank you!! :)
Vendeur
S'abonner
notesbymau
Avis reçus
Aperçu du contenu
Week 10: Reasoning and Decision Making
Two types of decision making:
- System 1 decision making
- Decision made on the spot
- Direct priming by stimulus (‘no thinking’): what you see is all there is
(WYSIATI)
- The solution often automatically retrieved from memory
- Excellent for most everyday decisions
- System 2 decision making
- Decision after long deliberations
- Considers information that is not directly available
- The solution often requires controlled reasoning
- Critical for consequential/long-term decisions
System 1 characteristics:
- Intuitive
- Fast
- Nonconscious
- Automatic
- Difficult to switch off
System 2 characteristics:
- Reflective
- Slow
- Conscious
- Controlled
Human decision making:
- Bruno Frey (economist): “the agent of economic theory is rational, selfish, and
his tastes do not change”
- Kahneman: people are irrational, inconsistent over time (WYSIATI), and are not
fully egocentric (importance of the group/altruism)
What would you prefer?
- Flip a coin: heads = $100; tails = nothing OR
- Sure thing: receive $46
- Expected values: ½ x 100 + ½ x 0 = $50 versus $46
- Economists prefer flipping the coin (highest expected value), while humans
overwhelmingly prefer the safe choice
,Expected value vs. expected utility
- According to Daniel Bernoulli (18th century), human choices are
not based on expected monetary values but on their
psychological value (expected utility)
- On the right is the law of diminishing returns ⇒ ⇒ ⇒
- The average utility of $100 and $0 (red) is lower than the
utility of $46 (green)
- However, a shortcoming of expected utility is that it focuses on absolute utility
instead of relative gains and losses
- ‘Today, Jack and Jill each have a wealth of 5 million. Yesterday, Jack
had 1 million and Jill had 9 million. Are they equally happy?’
- The utility is equal!
- Also, it lacks a reference point
- ‘John’s current wealth is 1 million, and Beth has 4 million. They are both
offered a choice between a gamble and a sure thing:
- Gamble: 50% chance to end up owning either 1 or 4 million
- Sure thing: own 2 million for sure’
- Equal utility, but Beth is more inclined to take the gamble: her
reference point is different (she wants to avoid loss)
- Gains and losses have equal weight (same utility with opposite sign)
- ‘Would you accept the following gamble?
- Heads: lose $100; tails: win $150’
- Most people don’t accept the gamble: they are risk
aversive. Losses are typically weighted twice as heavily a
gains
The prospect theory offers a neutral reference point for gains/losses (i.e., the
status quo). Furthermore, it considers diminishing returns (e.g., the
difference between $100 and $200 is much greater than between $900 and
$1000 - similar to utility). Lastly, gains and losses have unequal value; the
losses function is about twice as steep as the gains function
- Scenario 1: ‘you get $200 unconditionally. Then you must choose:
- p(½) = +$200; p(½) = $0 OR
- p(1) = +$100’
- Winner!
- Scenario 2: ‘you get $400 unconditionally. Then you must choose:
- p(½) = -$200; p(½) = $0 OR
- Winner!
- p(1) = -$100’
The outbreak of a disease that is expected to kill 600 people. Two
alternative programs to combat the disease:
- Scenario A:
- Program A: 200 people will be saved (72%)
, - Program B: ⅓ chance that 600 people will be saved, ⅔ chance
that no people will be saved (28%)
- Emphasizes the saving of lives (i.e., gains). Makes people risk
aversive according to prospect theory
- Scenario B:
- Program A: 400 people will die (22%)
- Program B: ⅓ chance that nobody will die, ⅔ chance that 600
people will die (78%)
- Emphasizes the loss of lives. Makes people risk-seeking
according to prospect theory
Deductive reasoning: information → conclusion; the conclusion yields new
knowledge
- Deduction: on the basis of given information we can draw a conclusion that is
definitely true (formal logic)
- Induction: on the basis of given information we can draw a conclusion that is
probably true
Different approaches to solving a problem:
- Heuristic: a rule of thumb. Generally works well, but does not guarantee a
correct answer
- Predominantly system 1
- Fast
- Commonly applied
- To inductive problems
- Sometimes to deductive problems
- Algorithm: an unambiguous description of how to solve a certain category of
problems
- Exclusively system 2
- Slow
- Not commonly applied
- Only applicable to deductive problems
Logical argument:
Conditional arguments (if… then):
- VALID:
- Modus ponens: confirmation of the antecedent
, - Modus tollens: denial of the consequent
- INVALID:
- Confirmation of the consequent
- Denial of the antecedent
Summary with examples:
Watson four-card problem: ‘IF vowel on one side, THEN even number of the other
side.’ Which cards do you have to turn over to check whether this rule applies?
Correct: E and 7; testing the rule requires falsifying
the argument
- 96% of a random sample of people made one
or more mistakes
The problem becomes easier when it gains societal
relevance/familiarity (e.g., IF you drink beer, you must be older than 18).
In conclusion, it is not concreteness per se that makes a conditional argument easy:
- A Watson 4-card problem based on ‘if I eat haddock, I drink gin’ leads again to
poor performance, even when the numbers (& letters) are substituted with
concrete examples
Familiarity with the rule seems more important:
- Permission schema - what is legal
Or the ability to apply rules for favorable social interaction:
Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:
Qualité garantie par les avis des clients
Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.
L’achat facile et rapide
Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.
Focus sur l’essentiel
Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.
Foire aux questions
Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?
Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.
Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?
Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.
Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?
Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur notesbymau. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.
Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?
Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour €5,49. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.
