Psychology 100 Chapter 8 Part II Thinking Intelligence

Psychology 100 Chapter 8 Part II Thinking & Intelligence

Outline o Cognition, C’ont o Problem solving o Decision Making Study Question: • What is the availability heuristic? Give an example of a reasoning error that might be attributed to availability. Math Phobic’s Nightmare

Cognition Valid Arguments If P -> Q P therefore, Q If it is an apple, it a fruit It is an apple It is a fruit Modus Ponens If P -> Q ~Q therefore, ~P If it is an apple, it a fruit It is not an apple Modus Tollens Invalid Arguments If P -> Q ~P therefore, ~ Q If P -> Q If it is an apple, it a fruit Q It is not an apple therefore, P It is not a fruit Denying the antecedent If it is an apple, it a fruit It is an apple Confirming the consequence

Cognition � • The Wason selection task – Each card has a letter on one side and a number on the other – What are the fewest cards you need to turn over to confirm or deny the following hypothesis: If it has a vowel on one side, there is an even number on the other side A B 1 2

Cognition • The Wason selection task – Within a familiar content > You are working at a bar > There is a table of 4, each person is drinking something, you can see that one person is drinking beer, another is drinking Coke. > You know the other two people, one is 18, one is 19 yrs old. If one is drinking beer, they must be nineteen 18 19 Coke Beer

Cognition • Why do we confirm the consequence? – Conditional vs. biconditional syllogism > If and only if. > E. g. If you don’t eat your supper, you get no ice cream – We say or hear a conditional statement, but we think or mean a biconditional.

Problem Cognition Solving Two flagpoles are standing, each 20 meters tall. A 30 meter rope is strung from the top of one of the flagpoles to the top of the other and hangs freely between them. The lowest point of the rope is 5 meters above the ground. How far apart are the two flagpoles? 20 m 5 m ?

Cognition • Problem Solving – The Gestaltist tradition > The goal of problem solving is the achievement of a Gestalt. § A form, configuration or whole pattern. § Parallels between perception and problem solving

Problem Cognition Solving • Problem Solving – The Gestaltist tradition Wolfgang Kohler > Wolfgang Kohler (Circa WW I) § Studied visual discrimination in animals § Applied gestalt principles to animal perception § Coined the term ‘insight’ to describe the sudden perception of proper relations. § Observed insightful behaviour in chimps solving problems

Problem Cognition Solving • Problem Solving – The Gestaltist tradition > Wallas’ (1926) stages of thinking § Preparation • Recognize a problem exists • Find a representation for the problem • Preliminary attempts at solution

Problem Cognition Solving • Problem Solving – The Gestaltist tradition > Wallas’ (1926) stages of thinking § Incubation • After failing to solve the problem it is set aside • No longer work on the problem at a conscious level • Work proceeds at an unconscious level

Problem Cognition Solving • Problem Solving – The Gestaltist tradition > Wallas’ (1926) stages of thinking § Illumination • Flash of insight • Answer suddenly appears in consciousness § Verification • Confirm the insight • Usually involves simple checking.

Problem Cognition Solving • Problem Solving – The Gestaltist tradition >Preparation: The role of representation § The Buddhist monk problem Top Base 6 AM 6 PM

Cognition • Problem Solving – The Gestaltist tradition >Incubation § Fulgosi & Guilford (1968) Imagine that all power stations shut down, then list all possible consequences. • Waiting 20 min before listing improved retrieval of obvious (but not remote) consequences • No effect for 10 min waiting interval

Problem Cognition Solving • Problem Solving – The Gestaltist tradition >Incubation

Cognition • Problem Solving – The Gestaltist tradition >Incubation § Silveira (1971) • The chain necklace problem • Control Group: Works on problem for 30 min • Four Experimental Groups > Brief or long preparation > 30 min or 4 hr interuption > Everyone worked for a total of 30 min

Cognition • Problem Solving – The Gestaltist tradition >Incubation § Silveira (1971)

Cognition • Problem Solving – The Gestaltist tradition >Incubation § Is it unconscious problem solving? • Silveria’s verbal protocol • Subjects tended to pick up the problem where they left off § Another explanation • Incubation allows us to change inappropriate sets • Improves performance § Incubation can impair performance as well • If the initial set had been appropriate

Cognition • Problem Solving – The Gestaltist tradition >Illumination and insight §OTTFFSSEN… § Archimedes § Insight problems § The fourth tree § Metcalfe & Wiebe (1987) • Had subjects complete either algebra or insight problems • Recorded “warmth” ratings

Problem Cognition Solving • Problem Solving – The Gestaltist tradition >Difficulties in problem solving § Functional Fixedness • Duncker’s candle problem

Cognition • Problem Solving Basics – Characteristics of problem solving > Three parts to a problem (Newell & Simon) § Initial state § Goal state § Operations to move through intermediate states • Rules to get you from the initial state to the goal state > E. g. , The Tower of Hanoi

Cognition • Problem Solving Basics – E. g. , The Tower of Hanoi Initial State

Cognition • Problem Solving Basics – E. g. , The Tower of Hanoi Goal State

Problem Cognition Solving • Problem Solving Basics – E. g. , The Tower of Hanoi > Operations through intermediate states § Disks may be moved one at a time to any post § A larger disk may NOT rest on top of a smaller disk > The problem space § The initial state, the goal state, and the intermediate steps to reach the goal. Also includes the problemsolver’s knowledge at each step • E. g. , Problem graphs

Problem graph for the Tower of Hanoi Puzzle

Cognition • Problem Solving Basics – Well-defined and ill-defined problems > Well defined problems § Clearly defined start state and goal state § Operations for moving from one state to the next are clearly defined § E. g. s. • The Tower of Hanoi • Hobbits and Orcs > Ill-defined problems § One or more of the above three are not clearly defined § E. g. s. • Making a purse from a sows ear • Many of the day to day problems that we attempt to solve

Cognition • Problem Solving Basics – Strategies for solving problems > Subgoals

HHH OOO Boat 1 H 1 O HH OO 1 H 1 O 2 O H O Boat HHH O 1 H OO Boat HH OO OOO Boat 1 O HHH O Boat HHH 1 O OO OO 2 H H O HHH OO Boat 2 O 2 O HH OO Boat HHH O Boat 2 H 1 H 1 O HH OO Boat HHH O 1 O O O HHH OO Boat 1 H 1 O HHH OO Boat H O Boat 2 O H O

Cognition • Problem Solving Basics – Strategies for solving problems > Subgoals § The Hobbits and Orcs problem graph > Hayes (1966) § Presented a 5/5 boat transformation task § Gave subjects a subgoal Three orcs on one side without the boat § Control group: 30 moves § Experimental group: 20 moves

Problem Cognition Solving • Problem Solving Basics – Strategies for solving problems > Brute Force § Go through all possible states until solution is found > Hill Climbing § Always move towards goal > Analogy § The jealous husbands problem § People tended not make use of the analogy § Attack - dispersion, Radiation, & Oil fire problem • Students who read two stories and could describe the covergence schema were more likely to solve third.

Problem Cognition Solving • Problem Solving Basics – Strategies for solving problems > Working backwards § The card game problem A Round 3 (8) Round 2 16 Round 1 8 Ante 4 B 8 (4) 14 7 C 8 4 (2) 13

Cognition • Inductive Reasoning – Algorithms and Heuristics > Reasoning under uncertainty: Inductive reasoning § Algorithms versus heuristics > Kahneman and Tversky’s work § Behavioural decision work § Ups and downs of heuristics § Cf. Visual illusions

Cognition • Inductive Reasoning – Algorithms and Heuristics > The representiveness heuristic § E. g. , Flip a coin 6 times, which is more likely HHHHHH or HHTHTT § Which lottery ticket is most likely to win the next 6 -49? 04 -11 -19 -29 -33 -39 or 01 -02 -03 -04 -05 -06 § The representativeness heuristic - samples are like the populations that they are pulled from. • The representativeness heuristic leads to a number of decision biases

Cognition • Inductive Reasoning – The representiveness heuristic > The law of small numbers § Who is more likely to have days where more than 60% of the births are male? St. Martha’s or the IWK? > Ignoring base rates § Cancer Screening example • 1% of women at age forty who participate in routine screening have breast cancer. 80% of women with breast cancer will get positive results. 9. 6% of women without breast cancer will also get positive results. A woman in this age group had a positive mammography in a routine screening. What is the probability that she actually has breast cancer? > The Gambler’s fallacy > The hot hand in basketball

Cognition • Inductive Reasoning – The Availability Heuristic > Our estimates of how often things occurs or are influenced by the ease with which relevant examples can be remembered > This leads to a number of biases 1) Which is a more likely cause of death in the United States: being killed by falling airplane parts or being killed by a shark? • Airplane parts! 30 X more likely than shark attacks. 2) Do more Americans die from a) homicide and car accidents, or b) diabetes and stomach cancer? • Diabetes and stomach cancer by a ratio of nearly 2: 1. 3) Which claims more lives in the US: lightning or tornadoes? • Lightning

Cognition • Inductive reasoning – The Availability Heuristic > Important factors § Vividness and Saliency • E. g. , the full moon § Repetition effects § Anything that makes recollection easier • Role of the media

Cognition A large city is on the verge of a rare asian bird flu outbreak and it is expected that 600 people will be infected. Two alternative programs have been proposed to fight the disease. Assume that these are the exact scientific estimates of the two programs: If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. If Program B is adopted, there is a one-third possibility that 600 people will be saved, and a two-thirds probability that no people will be saved. Which program would you favour?

Cognition • Inductive Reasoning – The framing effect (Kahneman & Tversky) > The wording of question in conjunction with the background context can influence the decision. > Both of the previous plans were rejected, consider the following: § If Plan C is adopted, 400 people will die. § If Plan D is adopted, there is one-third probability that nobody will die, and a two-thirds probability that 600 people die. > Kahneman & Tversky’s results Plan A 1/3 Saved Plan B P=1/3 Saved Plan C 2/3 Die Plan D P=2/3 Die 72% 28 % 22% 78 %

Cognition • Inductive reasoning – The framing effect (Kahneman & Tversky) > Risk seeking and avoidance § When questions are framed in terms of gains we avoid risk (Prefer A over B) § When framed in terms of losses we are risk-seekers (Prefer D over C) > Other findings relating to the Framing Effect § It is unrelated to statistical sophistication § It is not eliminated when the contradiction is pointed ou