13
Cognitive Processes PSY 334 Chapter 10 – Reasoning & Decision-Making May 28, 2003

Cognitive Processes PSY 334 Chapter 10 – Reasoning & Decision-Making May 28, 2003

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Cognitive Processes PSY 334 Chapter 10 – Reasoning & Decision-Making May 28, 2003

Cognitive ProcessesPSY 334

Chapter 10 – Reasoning & Decision-Making

May 28, 2003

Page 2: Cognitive Processes PSY 334 Chapter 10 – Reasoning & Decision-Making May 28, 2003

Set Effects

Set effect – when previous experience biases a subject toward a particular operator. Can prevent finding the solution to a new

problem. Luchins water jug problem.

Addition solution: 2A + C Subtraction solution: B – A – 2C New addition problems solved quicker and

subtraction problems solved more slowly.

Page 3: Cognitive Processes PSY 334 Chapter 10 – Reasoning & Decision-Making May 28, 2003

Einstellung Effect

Mechanization of thought – a set effect in which subjects get used to using a particular solution strategy. After using B – 2C – A, subjects cannot

find the easier solution A – C to problem 8. 64% of whole setup group failed 8 & 79%

used less efficient solution to 9 & 10. 1 % of controls used B-2C-A & 95% solved

question 8;

Page 4: Cognitive Processes PSY 334 Chapter 10 – Reasoning & Decision-Making May 28, 2003

Incubation Effects

Some kinds of problems tend to benefit from interruption (incubation). 55% without break, 64% 1 hr, 85% 4 hr. Delay may disrupt set effects.

Problems depending on a set of steps or procedures do not benefit from interruption. Subjects forget their plan and must review

what was previously done.

Page 5: Cognitive Processes PSY 334 Chapter 10 – Reasoning & Decision-Making May 28, 2003

Insight

There is no magical “aha” moment where everything falls into place, even though it feels that way. People let go of poor ways of solving the

problem during incubation. Subjects do not know when they are

close to a solution, so it seems like insight – but they were working all along.

Page 6: Cognitive Processes PSY 334 Chapter 10 – Reasoning & Decision-Making May 28, 2003

Research on Logic

Logic – a subdiscipline of philosophy and mathematics that formally specifies what it means for an argument to be correct.

Human deviations from logic were thought to be malfunctions of the mind.

Recent comparisons of human thinking show that logic is not an appropriate prescriptive norm.

Page 7: Cognitive Processes PSY 334 Chapter 10 – Reasoning & Decision-Making May 28, 2003

Two Kinds of Reasoning

Reasoning – the process of inferring new knowledge from what we already know.

Deductive reasoning – conclusions follow with certainty from their premises. Reasoning from the general to the specific.

Inductive reasoning – conclusions are probable rather than certain. Reasoning from the specific to the general. Probabilistic – based on likelihoods.

Page 8: Cognitive Processes PSY 334 Chapter 10 – Reasoning & Decision-Making May 28, 2003

Conditionals

If-then statements. Antecedent – the “if” part. Consequent – the “then” part.

Rules of inferences using conditionals: Modus ponens -- If A then B, A, conclude

B Modus tollens – If A then B, not-B,

conclude not-A Notation: negation, implication, therefore.

Page 9: Cognitive Processes PSY 334 Chapter 10 – Reasoning & Decision-Making May 28, 2003

Logical Fallacies

Denial of the antecedent: If P then Q, not-P, conclude not-Q If P then Q, not-P, conclude Q

Affirmation of the consequent: If P then Q, Q, conclude P If P then Q, Q, conclude not-P

Subjects seem to interpret the conditional as a biconditional – if means “if and only if”

Page 10: Cognitive Processes PSY 334 Chapter 10 – Reasoning & Decision-Making May 28, 2003

How People Reason

People may be reasoning in terms of conditional probabilities. Conditional probabilities can be found that

correspond to acceptance rates for fallacies.

Wason selection task – can be explained in terms of probabilities. Also explained by a permission schema

Page 11: Cognitive Processes PSY 334 Chapter 10 – Reasoning & Decision-Making May 28, 2003

Quantifiers

Categorical syllogism – analyzes propositions with quantifiers “all,” “no,” and “some.”

Fallacies: Some A’s are B’s Some B’s are C’s Conclude: Some A’s are C’s Substitute women for A, lawyers for B, men

for C to see what is wrong.

Page 12: Cognitive Processes PSY 334 Chapter 10 – Reasoning & Decision-Making May 28, 2003

Atmosphere Hypothesis

People commit fallacies because they tend to accept conclusions with the same quantifiers as the premises. No A’s are B’s All B’s are C’s Conclude No A’s are C’s.

Universal premises go with universal conclusions, particular with particular.

Does not fully explain behavior.

Page 13: Cognitive Processes PSY 334 Chapter 10 – Reasoning & Decision-Making May 28, 2003

Process Explanations

People construct a mental model to think concretely about the situation.

Correct conclusions depend upon choosing the correct mental model.

Errors occur because people overlook possible explanations of the premises: All the squares are striped Some striped objects have bold borders. Some of the squares have bold borders.