Judgment and Reasoning-OCR Past Paper PDF

Judgment and Reasoning Unit 12 Judgement and Reasoning Lecture Outline Heuristics Anchoring Attribute Substitution Availability Representativeness Fallacies Dual Process Model Confirmation and Disconfirmation Framing Emo...

Judgment and Reasoning Unit 12 Judgement and Reasoning Lecture Outline Heuristics Anchoring Attribute Substitution Availability Representativeness Fallacies Dual Process Model Confirmation and Disconfirmation Framing Emotion  Judgment Heuristics Heuristic GOOD: A quick and efficient strategy that works most of the time BAD: can lead to errors Judgment heuristics include Anchoring Attribute substitution Availability Representativeness Affective heuristics (Emotion)  Anchoring Using a particular piece of information / reference point to make subsequent judgments You are tethered to that point! Your judgments and perceptions are relative to experience Anchoring Bias Your judgments and perceptions are relative to experience Anchoring in Judgment Perception Anchors influence your behaviors (judgements) Compare to very expensive options Aren’t these 100, 50, and 25? Why not say so?  We use ourselves as an anchor Hi. How I’M GOOD. are you? THANKS FOR ASKING. Experts are not immune to anchoring Judgment Heuristics Attribute substitution (see TABLE 12.1 in text) Using readily available information that we believe is correlated with the desired information. Availability Representativeness Fallacies  Judgment Heuristics Examples of Attribute Substitution Processing fluency Ease of processing suggests familiarity, and therefore goodness and truth  Judgment Heuristics Examples of Attribute Substitution Illusions of Covariation Halo Effect Beautiful = good? Using Profits to indicate a good product McDonalds makes a lot of money = superb food? Availability Decisions are made based on the ease (fluency) of which something comes to mind. Availability Assessing probability: 1. Processing Fluency – the ease at which something is processed (e.g. perceived and/or brought to mind) Easy = true and/or familiar Difficult = false and/or unfamiliar 2. Frequency : Number of cases brought to mind Availability heuristic Who washes the dishes more often, you or your roommates? Autobiographical memories are remembered better than others  Schwarz et al., 1991 Task: Recall past episodes in which you Availability heuristic have been assertive IV: # of episodes to recall (6 v. 12) DV: Self-judgments of assertiveness Result: Those in the 6 examples group judged themselves as more assertive Why? Availability Heuristic: Easier to come up with 6 examples than 12  Representativeness Heuristics The representativeness heuristic is another example of attribute substitution resembles resembles Member X (Exemplar) Prototype Category  Representativeness Heuristics Type of Representativeness (1) From the individual to the population. E.g. Homer has trait [X] and he is a member of [insert group name here]. Everyone in [insert group name here] must have trait [X]. E.g. anecdotal evidence Representativeness Heuristics Representativeness heuristic: Hamill et al., 1980 Task: Watched “prison guard” discussing his job IVs: Instruction: told that the guard was representative of all guards or not Guard viewed: compassionate or contemptuous guard DV: conclusions about prison guards in general Result: Main effect of guard viewed; no effect of instruction See compassionate guard = positive views of guards See contemptuous guard = negative views of guards Reasoning from one instance to the population.  Representativeness Heuristics Type of Representativeness (2) From the population to the individual Assume all members have traits we associate with the category overall. E.g. I know that [insert group name here] have trait [X]. Bob is a [insert group name here]. Bob must have trait [X]. Representativeness Heuristics Type of Type of Representativeness (1) Representativeness (2) From the individual to From the population the population. to the individual Gambler’s Fallacy: Reasoning from the population to an instance Failure to recognize the independence of chance events  Base-Rate Fallacy Estimating the probability of a situation, we might have: Numbers Base-rate —information about the likelihood of an event Words Diagnostic information—information indicating whether an individual case belongs to a category Base-Rate neglect – ignoring base-rate information We use the words over the numbers Base-Rate neglect Kahneman and Tversky (1973) Base-rate information: 70 lawyers and 30 engineers Diagnostic information : An individual description suggestive of a prototypical lawyer or engineer, for example, “likes carpentry, sailing, math puzzles; dislikes politics” Randomly select one person Base-Rate neglect Is X an engineer? Does X resemble an engineer? What percentage Representativeness heuristic are engineers? Attend to base Base-rate neglect rate Base-Rate neglect The base-rate with no diagnostic information = use base rate The base rate is not neglected! Base-rate and diagnostic information = use diagnostic information. The base rate is neglected! Attribute substitution  Conjunction fallacy This occurs when it is assumed that specific conditions are more probable than a single general one. Dual Process Model of Decision making: System 1 and System 2 Dual-process models Dual Process Model of Decision making: System 1 & System 2 System 1 vs System 2: The one we use depends on : 1) The context of the decision Time available Attentional resources 2) How the problem is presented What format are the data in? Are statistical concepts primed? Dual Process Model of Decision making: System 1 & System 2 We are more likely to use System 2 when: 1. Statistical concepts are primed. Can differentiate between chance occurrence 2. Background knowledge of base rates is known 3. Training (experience) in using System 2 Confirmation and Disconfirmation Confirmation Bias the tendency to search for, interpret, or prioritize information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or expectations We ignore disconfirming data  Confirmation and Disconfirmation Confirmation bias creates Selective Perception, Attention, and Memory Bias in: Perception: Interpret behaviors in a confirmatory way Attention: Notice examples that fit the pattern more readily Memory: Will recall examples that fit the pattern more readily  Persistence of Impressions Based on Discredited Evidence Why might this happen? 1. New information interpreted in the context of pre-existing impressions 2. Pre-existing impressions are not changed even when new information authoritatively discredits the evidence on which it is based! Belief Perseverance  Confirmation and Disconfirmation Belief perseverance The tendency to continue endorsing a belief even when evidence has completely undermined it Confirmation and Disconfirmation Ross et al. (1975) Part 1: categorize “suicide notes” as authentic or fake. IV: False feedback Pre-arranged groups of success or failure Part 2: Told about false feedback after being told they were good or bad judges. DV: Self-ratings of social sensitivity Result: The arbitrary grouping continued to affect self-ratings of social sensitivity. Belief Perseverance! Confirmation and Disconfirmation We naturally seek confirmation of our beliefs (i.e., positive information) when in fact, “negative” disconfimatory information is more powerful.  Confirmation and Disconfirmation A Rooster wants to prove his crowing causes the sun to rise Confirming evidence: every day the rooster crows, and the sun rises Disconfirming evidence: one day he must not crow and see what happens Zaps: Decision Making Utility maximization - the option with the greatest expected value Do we always try to maximize expected utility?  Sometimes, it is how you word it Framing  Framing Effect The words used to conceptualize an issue/problem/situation impact how you interpret it  Words matter! 1984: “Doublespeak” Psychology of Language: Linguistic relativity: Language shapes thought Different languages = Different thoughts Affective heuristics – The role of emotions in decision making The orbitofrontal cortex is essential for evaluation of somatic markers – Body states E.g. tight stomach or a fast heart rate Patients with damage will make risky decisions Affective heuristics – The role of emotions in decision making Risk may depend on feelings of : Dread of an undesirable outcome, Anticipating regret for wrong choice (e.g. buyer’s remorse) Predictions about future emotions are not necessarily accurate: Overestimate The role of emotion in Decision making Waiting for an outcome is hard! People overestimate their future feelings  Reason-based choice – I make choices based on good reasons I’m totally a rational decision maker! The Paradox of Choice More choices = harder decisions The Paradox of Choice  Decision making and happiness Unable to forecast our future feelings We end up stressed by the “paradox of choice” Would be better off having others make our choices We end up “stumbling on happiness”