PSYCOGP - Decision Making & Reasoning Notes PDF

COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY JULIEN ZELYN MANLANGIT | BS PSYCHOLOGY | DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY DECISION MAKING CLASSICAL DECISION THEORY THE MODEL OF ECONOMIC MAN AND Process of choosing among...

COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY JULIEN ZELYN MANLANGIT | BS PSYCHOLOGY | DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY DECISION MAKING CLASSICAL DECISION THEORY THE MODEL OF ECONOMIC MAN AND Process of choosing among WOMAN alternatives E.g. I want to have a serious discussion with my partner Decision-makers are fully informed, rational, and objective JUDGMENT choose to MAXIMIZE something of VALUE FULLY INFORMED of options, and the subtle Process of evaluation based on criteria E.g. I do not feel supported in this differences among option relationship CLASSICAL DECISION THEORY REASON THE SUBJECTIVE EXPECTED UTILITY Process of drawing conclusions based THEORY on prior information E.g. Relationships should be a More psychological; less rational; look at partnership subjective and internal factors (bringing in the SELF) JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAKING IS Decisions made to maximize pleasure ABOUT: (positive utility) and to minimize pain 1. Selecting among choices: (negative utility) choosing a computer(which?) considers the psychological make-up of the Prof (which?) individual and does not assume we only use 2. or evaluating an opportunity” our rational, calculating minds decide whether you will agree becoming a significant other A. SUBJECTIVE UTILITY 3. involves searching for evidence where the Maximize pleasure: highest positive ultimate decision depends on certain utility rules or criteria Minimize pain: avoid negative utility What is your criteria for choosing a We calculate based on our SUBJECTIVE prof? Where do you search for evidence criteria about this? B. SUBJECTIVE PROBABILITY What is your criteria for choosing what The likelihood that the pleasurable or to eat for lunch on campus? What will painful thing will happen your decision be based on? calculated when we have little or unreliable information (e.g. we never know when it will rain! Page 1  COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY JULIEN ZELYN MANLANGIT | BS PSYCHOLOGY | DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY CLASSICAL DECISION THEORY Subjective utility theory and relationships for those with depression E.g Choosing to watch a movie or studying Depressive individuals see a lot of Subjective Utility of Quiz? negative utility Subjective Utility of Watching a Movie? ○ “we will just fight a lot“ Subjective Probability that there will be a ○ “I will just make a fool of myself” quiz? Subjective Probability that there is access to Subjective probabilities are more watch a movie? towards the negative side Subjective Utility In choosing a Prof, how important is CLASSICAL DECISION THEORY schedule for you? Is it a positive or NATURAL DECISION MAKING THEORY negative utility? Complex process In choosing a computer, how important Cannot be reproduced in a laboratory is weight for you? Is that + or – utility? Studies on situations where there are high In choosing a route when travelling, is stakes, ill-structured, high pressure, team scenic route important to you? environment In cutting class, how important is it that Consider cognitive, emotional, and you are not able to take notes? situational variables SUBJECTIVE PROBABILITY How likely do you think you will get into CLASSICAL DECISION THEORY an accident if you go home at 2 am? GROUP DECISION MAKING What’s the likelihood that your teacher A. GOOD GROUP DECISION MAKING will call a quiz if you cut? Small group What’s the likelihood that you will get Open communication pregnant if you have unprotected sex? Common mind set Or even use a pill? Agree on acceptable group behavior Studies on Subjective utility and sexual activity GROUP THINK to avoid STDs phenomenon characterized by 1. ’Virgins’ vs inactive: “waiting until I am premature decision making that is married” was a value mentioned more generally the result of group members for ‘virgins’ than inactive adolescents. attempting to avoid conflict 2. Active adolescents valued pleasure. What leads to groupthink? ⚬ an isolated, cohesive, and homogeneous group is empowered to make decisions ⚬ objective and impartial leadership is absent, within the group or outside it Page 2  COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY JULIEN ZELYN MANLANGIT | BS PSYCHOLOGY | DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY ⚬ high levels of stress impinge on the outside experts should be encouraged to group decision-making process. challenge views of the members ⚬ anxiety - anxious group members are less likely to explore new options and d. at least one articulate and knowledgeable will likely try to avoid further conflict member should be given the role of devil's advocate (to question assumptions and SYMPTOMS OF GROUP THINK plans) close-mindedness rationalization squelching of dissent NEUROSCIENCE OF DECISION-MAKING Formation of a “mindguard” for the the prefrontal cortex, and particularly group—one person appoints self as theanterior cingulate cortex active keeper of the group norm and ensures Examination of decision making in drug that people stay in line abusers identified a number of areas Feeling invulnerable involved in risky decisions Feeling unanimous ○ decreased activation in the left pregenual anterior cingulate ON GROUPTHINK cortex of drug abusers “In 1997, members of the Heaven’s Gate cult in ○ during decision making, the California committed mass suicide in the hope anterior cingulate cortex is of meeting up with extraterrestrials in a involved in the consideration of spaceship trailing the Hale-Bopp comet. potential rewards. Although this group suicide is a striking example of conformity to a destructive group norm, similar events have occurred throughout HEURISTICS AND BIASES human history, such as the suicide of more We make decisions in a short cut than 900 members of the Jonestown, Guyana, manner and deal with a lot less religious cult in 1978.” information and information processing HOW TO AVOID: GROUP THINK They lighten the cognitive load but make for greater chances of error Kinds of Heuristics a. leader should avoid stating preferences and ○ Satisficing expectations at the outset ○ Elimination by Aspects ○ Representative Heuristic b. each member should routinely discuss the ○ Availability Heuristic groups' deliberations with a trusted ○ Anchoring associate and report back to the group on the ○ Framing associate's reactions c. one or more experts should be invited to each meeting on a staggered basis. The Page 3  COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY JULIEN ZELYN MANLANGIT | BS PSYCHOLOGY | DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY I. SATISFICING c. Deciding whether a relative should Do not have unlimited rationality undergo chemotherapy Do not make ideal decisions d. Decide where to eat lunch when you are Use bound rationality in a rush Sub-optimal strategy We consider SOME (not all) options one E. Choosing your grad school by one and choose the one that is Classical DM? SU Decision making? Satisficing? GOOD ENOUGH (not best) to meet Elimination by aspects? our MINIMUM level of acceptability Do you know of an occasion where you or (“PWEDE NA YAN ATTITUDE”) someone else used an inappropriate strategy? Also assumes we lower our standard if too many options fail to meet our It is said we use satisficing and elimination by aspects to narrow down, then we use more minimum level of acceptability thorough rational cognitive strategies after E.g. choosing food when in a rush, “I just that. need an average shirt for and org activity” In what other ways do we use ELIMINATION: satisficing? Do we do this when treating Choosing a new phone a disease? SATISFICING III. REPRESENTATIVENESS HEURISTIC Wearing formal clothes - “pwede na to” The extent that an event looks representative of the population from which it is derived (does it look like the population?) II. ELIMINATION BY ASPECTS The degree to which it reflects the salient Steps features of the process by which it is 1. Focus on one aspect or attribute and form a generated (process: random?) We also use minimum criterion. 2. Eliminate those that fall short REPRESENTATIVENESS heuristic when we 3.Select a second aspect and select a are highly aware of anecdotal evidence Minimum.... (small sample of pop) Ex. Choosing a class for next sem “I will eat lots of bacon because I know this Step 1: Morning! guy who loves bacon and was able to lift So...take out all afternoon options. heavy weights...” Step 2: Prof must be ‘okay’ So... remove all ‘not okay’ profs We use it because we fail to understand the concept of base rates (STATS) Reflect! Is your decision-making strategy different Base rates: prevalence of an event or when you: a. Choosing an outfit for a formal event characteristic within a population of events and characteristics b. Choosing a new phone Page 4  COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY JULIEN ZELYN MANLANGIT | BS PSYCHOLOGY | DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY “All field trips are cancelled because in the last field trip of a school in Sagada, a bus fell 1. Salient = vivid = better (or worse); Ex. we won't ride a plane because the on its side and a lot of children died”. crashes look so horrific, though a crashes are much more but look less When we decide if we will bring an umbrella : horrific clouds in the sky? Time of year? Does it look When some vote they base it on images representative of a rainy day? (e.g. a govt official talking to the MNLF or climbing a mountain to visit a tribe: looks more vivid than a guy sitting at a When we decide on hitching a trike ride with desk writing out laws) a person: is this person representative of “good people”? 2. Recency tsunami, a teacher just failed your block We make decisions based on how the option mate, or a horrendous traffic jam on a looks like the population from which it is certain road yesterday derived. The problem (like with other 3. Familiarity heursistics) is that we do not think repetition makes an idea more available objectively! in your head – ex. Repeated commercials or political Problems in using REPRESENTATIVENESS campaigns. Eating at mc do: it always is the easiest that comes to mind. Two We Are Insensitive To Base Rates halves of a couple thought they were (STATS) doing more for the family than they ○ “He made a bad decision other bec they were familiar with the therefore he is a bad little things they did (the other was not) boss/leader”. (how many good Familiarity - nanunumbat decisions did the boss make?) ○ “100 sacks of rice got rotten in V. ANCHORS AND ADJUSTMENTS the warehouse. The DSWD heads should be sacked” (how People make decisions based on a certain many sacks were not rotten?) reference point Q:if you get a 7/10 in an essay quiz, how do you evaluate this score? Q:Would you buy a pair ofj eans costing IV. AVAILABILITY P2000.00? We make judgements based on the 1. Using anchoring, how can you let your dad ease that an example comes to mind allow you to go to Batangas for sem break? ○ Would you go to Boracay on sembreak? 2. Using anchoring, how can you make ○ Do you prefer to go to Colorado someone feel good (and not become or Los Angeles? depressed) if they did not get promoted. ○ In a strange place, and you are hungry, would you order McDo You see some jeans 2000 or 2,500 then we see or an unfamiliar burger brand? a pair jeans 4500, 4500 seems expensive. But ○ Would you go to a city that what if the jeans you saw first were 6,5T, and recently experienced an 7T, then the 4.5T wont seem expensive earthquake? first tell your dad how you want to go to Why we fall for this heuristic? bangkok for sem break. Then say, never mind, a. Recency batangas nalang b. Saliency c. Familiarity Page 5  COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY JULIEN ZELYN MANLANGIT | BS PSYCHOLOGY | DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY VI. FRAMING EFFECTS Risk aversive framing – “At least we gain.... The other thing we are not sure” Q: A meteor will hit the earth and might kill 600 people in the outskirts of a city. Risk seeking framing: prefer large uncertain loss to smaller certain loss. Option A: send bomb A to the meteor and we Argument: “The worst might not happen, the will surely save 200 people other is less painful, but it is sure to happen!” Option B: send bomb B to the meteor and it has a 1/3 prob that 600 ppl will be saved and 2/3 prob that none will be saved. Option C: if bomb C is used, 400 die Option D: If bomb D is used, there is a 1/3 probability that no one will die Risk aversive framing – certain small gain rather than larger uncertain gain. Framed according to GAIN Risk Seeking framing – prefer large uncertain loss to smaller certain loss. Let’s take the risk rather than the sure loss! Framed according to LOSSES Q: A meteor will hit the earth and might kill 600 people in the outskirts of a city. Option A: send bomb A to the meteor and we will surely save 200 people Option B: send bomb B to the meteor and it has a 1/3 prob that 600 ppl will be saved and 2/3 prob that none will be saved. Option C: if bomb C is used, 400 die Option D: If bomb D is used, there is a 1/3 How you frame your argument will probability that no one will die influence how people will make decisions or judgments. A and C are the same B and D are the same Argues that we are not objective, but are influenced by the framing of the argument How you frame your argument will Risk aversive framing – “At least we gain.... The influence how people will make other thing we are not sure” decisions or judgments. Argues that we are not objective, but Risk seeking framing: prefer large uncertain loss are influenced by the framing of the to smaller certain loss. argument argument: “The worst might not happen, the other is less painful, but it is sure to happen!” Page 6  COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY JULIEN ZELYN MANLANGIT | BS PSYCHOLOGY | DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY Hot-hand Effect RISK AVERSIVE OR RISK SEEKING? ○ The belief that a person is more likely to succeed after several successful attempts WHICH IS IT? ○ “I’m on a roll! If I kept winning, I will continue to win!” Let’s pass this road! Do you think we will take forever on it? No naman siguro! If we pass the Sunk-cost Fallacy highway we are surely to pass a number of ○ Continue to invest in something scary large trucks. because one has invested in it before, and one hopes to Let’s pass this road, at least its scenic... the recover one’s investment highway might be faster but we’re not sure of ○ ‘We’ve come this far!’ that. Q: You go to a convention where there Let’s pass this road! Do you think we will take are 30 engineers and 70 lawyers. A forever on it? No naman siguro! If we pass the person named shows no interest in highway we are surely to pass a number of political issues and spends her free scary large trucks. time on home carpentry. ○ Jhefherlhyn must be a/an Let’s pass this road, at least its scenic... the _________. highway might be faster but we’re not sure of that. Conjunction Fallacy ○ chances of two things happening together is greater than the chance of one of those BIASES things happening alone ○ Priest seems to be what kind of Illusory Correlations teacher? ○ relationship between two events ○ What conjunction fallacy seems appears to exist, but there is no to be connected with the kind of relationship, or the relationship is teachers you choose. How about much weaker the kinds of orgs on campus. Overconfidence ○ overvaluation of skills, knowledge, or judgment e.g. ‘I BIASES won’t study na, I know that na eh’ TIME DELAY TRAP Hindsight Bias decide because of initial/immediate ○ overestimate ability to predict consequences even if long term events consequences are bad ○ e.g. ‘I knew this would happen!’ ○ credit card trap -- [oh talaga ba?!] ○ cutting class trap ○ cheesecake trap Gamblers’ Fallacy ○ belief that the chances of something happening becomes higher or lower as the process is repeated ○ “If this slot machine kept showing losses all day, it’s bound to turn around now!” Page 7  COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY JULIEN ZELYN MANLANGIT | BS PSYCHOLOGY | DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY So are Heuristics Good or Bad? Deductive validity does not equate with We continue to use them because they truth work: efficient, effective ○ If Area 51 is secured, then there Heuristics consider the lack of optimal must be aliens. Area 51 is data, optimal solutions, and the secured. Therefore, there are environment in which the decision must aliens. take place Even very intelligent people who use Can reach deductively valid conclusions statistics all the time use heuristics in that are completely untrue with respect making everyday and important to the world decisions ○ All men have tails. Ned is a But we should learn about these human. Ned has a tail.: VALID. heuristics, fallacies, and biases to make us aware that we can be illogical Focus only on the deductive validity, or sometimes in our thinking. logical soundness, of the reasoning CONDITIONAL REASONING IN THE REASONING EVERYDAY Process of drawing conclusions from Rather than using formal inference principles and from evidence rules, people often use pragmatic Move from what is already known to reasoning schemas infer a new conclusion or to evaluate a Pragmatic Reasoning Schemas proposed conclusion (Pragmatic Rules): Deductive or Inductive ○ General organizing principles or rules related to particular kinds REASONING of goals (e.g. permissions, obligations, or causations) DEDUCTIVE REASONING ○ General applied to specific situations Reasoning from a general statement to a specific application of the general Prior beliefs matter in reasoning (may statement vary due to perspective effects Based on the validity of propositions Pragmatic reasoning schemas help us Based on logical propositions deduce what might reasonably be true Process of reasoning from one or more in situations where our previous general statements regarding what is experiences or our existing knowledge known to reach a logically certain cannot tell us all we want to know conclusion e.g. ○ see someone who looks extremely young. Then you see CONDITIONAL REASONING the person walk to a car. He reasoner must draw a conclusion based unlocks it, gets in, and drives on an if-then proposition away. This observation would If antecedent condition p is met, then activate your permission schema consequent event q follows for driving: “If you are to be If you have established a conditional permitted to drive alone, then proposition, then you may draw a well you must be at least 18 years reasoned conclusion (DEDUCTIVE old.” You might now deduce that VALIDITY) the person you saw is at least 18 If p, then q. p. Therefore, q. years old e.g. ○ All humans are mortals. Cassie is human. Cassie is mortal. Page 8  COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY JULIEN ZELYN MANLANGIT | BS PSYCHOLOGY | DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY HEURISTICS AND BIASES IN DEDUCTIVE WHY INDUCTIVE REASONING? REASONING It helps to become increasingly able to make sense out of the great variability FORECLOSURE EFFECTS in their environment we fail to consider all the possibilities Predict events in their environment, before reaching a conclusion thereby reducing their uncertainty CONFIRMATION BIAS we seek confirmation rather than disconfirmation of what we already INDUCTIVE REASONING believe Everything is probable Everything is an if We use specific events. Additional Information/Notes: Inference!!! DEDUCTIVE REASONING IS ONLY E.g., all people in the class is DL; here, you EFFECTIVE FOR UNIVERSAL TRUTHS can see na excellent students ang nasa psycogp ENHANCING DEDUCTIVE REASONING If you have a good aptitude in math, therefore magaling ka sa math avoid heuristics and biases that distort To predict things our reasoning If nasa uncertain tayo, we have anxiety take longer to reach or to evaluate conclusions (take more alternatives) Mood affects reasoning. When people are in a sad mood, they tend to pay more attention to details than when they are in a happy mood (Schwarz & CASUAL INFERENCES Skurnik, 2003) How people make judgments about whether something causes something REASONING else ○ David Hume: we are most likely INDUCTIVE REASONING to infer causality when we Process of reasoning from specific facts observe covariation over time: or observations to reach a likely First one thing happens, then conclusion that may explain the facts. another. If we see the two Generating and testing hypotheses events paired enough, we may We can never reach a logically certain come to believe that the first conclusion: we only can reach a causes the second. particularly well-founded or probable conclusion Many phenomena have multiple causes How we can make any inductions at all? As the future has not happened, how can we predict what it will bring? CASUAL INFERENCE INDUCTION: INFERENCES If x will happen, b will happen all the people enrolled in your cognitive Relationships do not cause causality psychology course are on the dean’s list. From these observations, you could reason inductively that all students who enroll in cognitive psychology are excellent students (or at least earn the grades to give that impression). Page 9  COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY JULIEN ZELYN MANLANGIT | BS PSYCHOLOGY | DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY ERRORS IN INDUCTIVE REASONING REASONING BY ANALOGY reasoner must observe the first pair of DISCOUNTING ERROR items and must induce from those two once we have identified one of the items one or more relations suspected causes of a phenomenon we If reasoners know the meanings of the stop searching for additional alternative words, they probably will find it or contributing causes relatively easy to figure out that the relationship E.g. DISCOUNTING ERROR ○ Cat: Paw :: Horse: _____? We stop searching for additional ○ Psychology : Behavior : alternative causes ○ Numismatics: _________? Once we found an evidence, that’s it. In reality, there are many more other reasons REASONING BY ANALOGY We see the world in relationships Cat is to paw, horse is to hoof SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY We may meet someone, expecting not to like them. We may treat them in ways ANALOGIES IN THE EVERYDAY that are different from how we would treat them if we expected to like them. we make predictions about our They then may respond to us in less environment favorable ways. They thereby “confirm” connect our perceptions with our our original belief that they’re not memories by means of analogies likable. analogies then activate concepts and Teachers little expectations of students items stored in our mind that are similar when they think they’re low in ability. to the current input; through this The students then give the teachers activation, we can then make a little. The teachers’ original beliefs are prediction of what is likely in a given thereby “confirmed” situation e.g. ○ predictions about global SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY warming are being guided in part Something predicted to happen in the by people drawing analogies to future times in the past when the When u force things to happen when they people believed either that the shouldn’t happen at all When ur thoughts influences behavior atmosphere warmed up or did May action na! not. Whether a given individual believes in global warming depends in part upon what analogy or analogies the individual decides to draw ○ cheating? ○ Failure? Page 10  COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY JULIEN ZELYN MANLANGIT | BS PSYCHOLOGY | DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY ALTERNATE VIEW IN REASONING COMPLEMENTARY SYSTEMS DUAL PROCESS THEORY We need to respond quickly and easily to everyday situations, based on observed similarities and temporal two complementary systems of contiguities (associative). Yet we also reasoning can be distinguished need a means for evaluating our 1. ASSOCIATIVE SYSTEM responses more deliberately mental operations based on observed (rule-based) similarities In making right choices: There are no “right” or “wrong” answers to most of 2. RULE-BASED SYSTEM the decisions we make. We use our manipulations based on the relations best judgment at the time of our among symbols decisions and think that they are more (e.g. recognizing illogical statements, nearly right than wrong as opposed to ruling-out defining features, etc.) definitively right or wrong. BIASES AND EFFECTS IN ASSOCIATIVE COMPLEMENTARY SYSTEMS SYSTEM Rule-based: moral values, convictions Boy n girl relationship: it’s a sin pag may BELIEF BIAS EFFECT sexual activity before marriage ○ We agree more with syllogisms that affirm our beliefs, whether or not these syllogisms are logically valid FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT ○ Own behavior and judgments are more common and more appropriate than those of other people ○ Associating others’ views with our own simply because they are our own is a questionable practice Page 11