Download Cognitive Biases and Heuristics: A Comprehensive Guide with Examples and Applications and more Exams Advanced Education in PDF only on Docsity!
PSC 1 52 EXAM 4 WITH 100 % VERIFIED SOLUTIONS!!
What are heuristics? mental shortcuts for making judgments quickly & with little effort. Big 3 heuristics: Representativeness, Availability, Anchoring & Adjustment What is satisficing? opting for "good enough" solutions rather than optimal solutions (optimizing.) Useful, but can lead to errors & biases What is the representative heuristic?-using similarity as cue for making judgments.
(judge whether something belongs to a category based on how similar it is to a typicalexample of that category.)
-neglect useful info & rely only on similarity (following a perceived pattern, even if it conflicts with logic or statistical probability.) Can lead to errors & statistically incorrect judgments. How is the representative heuristic illustrated by base-rate neglect, the gambler'sfallacy, failures to observe the conjunction rule, and failures to appreciate regression to the mean?
base rates: general frequency of an event (What's the probability that Jack is anengineer? Better Q: How similar is Jack to engineers?)
gambler's fallacy: coin flip probabilities (picking the most 'random' representation) (Neglect independence of chance events, like coin flip (50% chance, so any pattern isequally possible, but ppl made assumptions based on previous pattern.)
Conjunction rule (Linda is banker vs Linda is banker + feminist)
regression to the mean: extreme outcomes tend to be followed by less extreme ones (sophomore slump, movie sequels, band's 2nd album, hot hand in basketball,jinx/Madden curse, etc.)
What is the availability heuristic? Does it always lead to incorrect responding?-using ease of recall as cue for judging frequency/ likelihood of an event
(more likely to die of diabetes vs homicide; tornado or lightning) -usually, availability heuristic serves us well (e.g. things that happen more often shouldcome to mind more easily)
-but, it can lead us astray (e.g. vivid anecdotes & other accessible info can haveexaggerated influence)
conclusion. Ex: asking freezing point of vodka, then giving freezing point of water as an anchor (-30)
What are 2 problems with the anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic? (separateexperiments into other slides)
- PPL USE ARBITRARY/IRRELEVANT ANCHORS ex: Africa wheel experiment, legal experts. EX 1: -experimenter spins wheel, it lands on 10 or 65 -is % of African countries in UN higher or lower than 10 vs 65? -wheel on 10: 25% -wheel on 65: 45% EX 2: -legal experts' sentencing decisions affected by irrelevant anchors -irrelevant anchors were just as strong as relevant anchors
-experts' decisions were just as biased as non-experts
- PPL DON'T ADJUST SUFFICIENTLY -thinking extensively before making a decision increases confidence BUT -can also make us focus on info that's irrelevant for making optimal decision.
Why can thinking too much be a bad thing? How is this illustrated by research on insightproblem-solving and sexual orientation detection? -thinking a lot before making a decision can increase confidence, but it can make usfocus on info that's irrelevant to reaching optimal decision
insight problem solving: Ps solved less problems when overthinking task vs distracted detecting sexual orientation: guessing if person is gay or straight from face. Ps who made a quick judgment were significantly more accurate than those who madedeliberate decision.
What is unconscious thought theory? How does this theory define unconscious andconscious thought? -Unconscious thought theory: relying on impressions/UT often produces better
What is the "Best of Both Worlds" hypothesis? CT should be used to gather info, but UT should be used to work on it (using CT + UTtogether.)
What does unconscious thought theory suggest about the utility of pro-con lists? -good for ensuring you have all relevant info-once you have all the info, lists are bad because they encourage CT
What did Kohlberg's stage theory state about moral development and judgments? -ideas of what's morally right / wrong change as reasoning abilities develop -sophistication of moral reasoning is an indicator of moral development. -deliberative reasoning --> moral judgment ex: the Heinz dilemma (stealing meds to save wife.)
What does Haidt's social intuitionist model suggest about moral judgments? -moral judgments usually driven by immediate, intuitive reaction -reasoning comes later, to provide support for our intuitive reaction
-intuition/emotion --> moral judgment --> deliberative reasoning. -moral dumbfounding: run out of reasoning as to why it's wrong, but still just believe it'swrong.
ex: Mark & Julie dilemma (incest.)
What does Greene's dual-process model suggest about moral judgments? -BOTH intuition/emotion & deliberative reasoning contribute to moral judgment -if emotional reaction is strong (pushing man) OR if motivation and ability to deliberate islow, emotional reaction will dominate judgment.
-if emotional reaction is weak (pulling lever) OR if motivation and ability are high,reasoning will dominate.
ex: trolley dillemma
What is counterfactual thinking?-generation of alternatives to factual events - thinking ab "what could've been"
-counterfactuals imply a causal connection (the thing you wish you had / hadn't donemust have caused the problem)
4) PERCEIVED CONTROLLABILITY
-Mr. Jones getting killed by drunk driver we would say "if only Mr. Jones took a different route" rather than "if only the driverwasn't drunk."
reality is it was not under his control, but we falsely perceive control (victim blaming.)
Why does the closeness of counterfactuals heighten emotional reactions? How is thisillustrated by Medvec et al.'s study of Olympic medalists? -we feel more intense negative emotions when we almost attain a good outcome Medvec et al: -bronze medalists happier than silver medalists -easy for silver medalists to imagine winning gold
Why do people feel worse about counterfactuals that involve exceptions to routines? -we feel worse when something bad happens b/c of an exceptional event -easier to imagine not going the unusual route than not going the usual route.
Generally speaking, under what conditions are people more regretful of actions vs.inactions?
-in short term, we regret actions (commission) more than inaction (ommission) bc: -actions more salient than inactions, but over time, salience of actions fade. -actions seem more causal - easier to undo (ex: apology.) BUT in the long-term we regret inactions bc of "what ifs." -regrettable inactions remain a mystery.
How do beliefs about controllability affect feelings of regret? -we think we have some controllability over an event -we mentally "undo" behaviors of victims, but not behaviors of criminals (victimblaming.)
-when we think of what the victim could have done differently. we treat criminal's behavior as static, forgetting that they shouldn't have done thebehavior in the first place
When do counterfactuals make us feel better, and when do they make us feel worse?WORSE: -Regrets about things we said or did, missed opportunities -Increased feelings of self-blame & responsibility
-ex: lottery winners not as happy as people predict -ex: paraplegics happier than people predict (impact bias)
What is the impact bias? How is it illustrated by Gilbert et al.'s (1998) study ofprofessors' predictions about and experiences of receiving or not receiving tenure? impact bias: wrongly estimate intensity or duration of emotional reactions to futureevents
good at predicting: if something will make us feel good or bad. bad at predicting: how good/bad we will feel, or how long the feeling will last. PROMOTIONS: professors predicted how happy they were granted vs denied tenure. Happiness: -forecasters (predicted): denied tenure; low happy, granted; high happy ( denied3.5/granted 6)
-experiencers (experienced): insignificant difference in happiness (denied 5/granted 6) RESULTS: profs over-estimated how negative they would feel if denied tenure
repeated study w/ students + housing overestimated/underestimated happiness for ifthey would get desirable vs undesirable housing.
reality: both groups were equally happy with what they had.
What are 4 reasons the impact bias might occur?1) IMMUNE NEGLECT -lack of awareness of psychological immune system (defense mechanisms)
- MISCONSTRUAL (hot-cold empathy gap)
- INACCURATE THEORIES ABOUT WHAT MAKES US HAPPY "money buys happiness" but spending the money is what actually makes us happy.
- FOCALISM-when predicting, we focus on particular event , excluding other events. -who's happier: Californians or Iowans?
What is the psychological immune system? (defense mechanisms) Protective mechanisms in our brain that help us understand + cope with difficultexperiences to reduce suffering.
-bogus pipeline -implicit measures
What does research find about measure specificity and the relationship betweenattitudes and behaviors? more specific attitude=better predictor of specific behavior. Ex: predicting recycling behavior (pro environment vs pro recycling attitude) General attitudes (ex: pro environment) predict specific behaviors poorly. But specific attitudes predict specific behaviors better (ex: pro recycling.) Behavioral intentions predict even better!
What sorts of behaviors do implicit and explicit measures predict? implicit measures predict behaviors that are HARD to control (non-verbal behavior; eye contact, social distance) -explicit measures predict behaviors that are EASY to control (social judgements;scales, stereotypes, etc.)
if no explicit attitude is present, implicit attitude will guide behavior (Ex: voting, smoking)
What are implementation intentions? What is the role of situational cues? "If...then" plans that specify exactly when, where, and how behavior will beimplemented
-situational cues activate intentions + behaviors (automatic + effortless once plan starts) Intentions to act predict better than general attitudes. Intentions are based on: -attitudes, norms, perceived control of behavior.
What does research find on the usefulness of implementation intentions? Think aboutthe breast self-exam and exercise among college students studies. SELF-EXAMS: -women w/goal of doing self-exam in next month (53%) -women w/goal of doing self-exam AND specified when/where (99%) EXERCISE:
Does approaching something make us like it more? Think of Cacioppo et al.'s study withChinese ideographs. YES -Ps rated ideographs (neutral stimuli) more favorably when pulling rather than pushing
Does approaching someone make us like them more? Does gender factor in? Think ofFinkel & Eastwick's study with speed daters. YES approaching a mate (vs being approached) tends to make us like them more. Women more selective than men in study. Difference suggests men may be more influenced by novelty of meeting new potentialpartners.
Does approaching groups make us like them more? Think of Kawakami et al.'s studywith black and white faces and joystick movement. YES -(white) Ps who pulled joystick towards self after seeing a black face reducedstereotype bias of black people
(compared to Ps who pushed away in response to black faces.)
Conjunction Fallacy Making more extreme predictions for the joint occurrence of events than for a singleevent.
(Ex: Linda is a bank teller vs Linda is a bank teller & feminist) More variables, so statistically less probable.
Experiments on problem with anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic (arbitrary/irrelevantanchors) EX 1: -experimenter spins wheel, it lands on 10 or 65 (secretly preset) -is % of African countries in UN higher or lower than 10 vs 65? -What ’ s the exact % of African countries in UN? -wheel on 10: 25% -wheel on 65: 45% EX 2: -legal experts' sentencing decisions affected by irrelevant anchors -irrelevant anchors were just as strong as relevant anchors
