thinking and decision making Flashcards
(21 cards)
thinking
The process of using knowledge and information to make plans, interpret the world, and make predictions about the world in general.
decision making
The process of identifying and choosing alternatives based on the values and preferences of the decision-maker.
the dual processing model
Postulates that there are two basic modes of thinking, referred to as “system 1” and “system 2”.
system 1 thinking: intuitive thinking
- Focuses on what it sees and ignores absent evidence.
- Bases decisions on past experiences and knowledge. (already established schema)
- Quick, prone to errors.
- Generates impressions.
- Takes short cuts. (heuristics)
- Operates “automatically”
system 2 thinking: rational thinking
- Requires concentration and effort.
- Works with abstract concepts.
- Works with logic.
- Uses conscious reasoning.
- More reliable, but slow.
Why do we tend to use system 1?
- We are cognitive misers: we prefer to think with minimal effort.
- Sometimes even when we want to focus, it’s difficult} when we are trying to do it for too long/when the task is too difficult, over time we experience ego depletion.
- Sometimes we have too many things happening in our brain to allocate energy for problem solving. This is because our cognitive load is too high.
- The law of least effort drives us to to choose the easiest solution.
anchoring bias
The tendency to rely heavily on the first piece of information you receive when making decisions.
advantages of dual processing model
+Supported by research: Alter & Oppenheimer provides strong evidence for 2 distinct types of thinking, Tversky & Kahneman (1974) demonstrated cognitive biases (eg. anchoring biases) as a result of system 1 thinking.
+Explains cognitive biases: helps to explain why people rely on heuristics, leasing to predictable errors in judgment.
+Application in real life: explains errors in financial decision making, legal judgments, and even medical diagnoses when system 1 dominates.
+Biological support: different types of thinking may be processed in different parts of the brain.
limitations of dual processing model
-Reductionist in its explanation of thinking: some psychologists argue that there are multiple systems.
(oversimplification of thinking->thinking does not always fit into 2 separate systems}there is overlap between them, doesn’t explain how they interact).
-Lack of biological evidence: while neuroimaging studies show different brain areas involved in intuitive vs analytical thinking, the decision is not always clear-cut.
-Does not always account for individual differences: some people may rely more on one system than the other due to experience, training, or cognitive ability.
-Unclear definitions of system 1 and 2: fast processing is typically associated with system 1, but experience can make system 2 process faster} makes it difficult to categorise thinking purely based on speed.
tversky & kahneman aim
To investigate the effect of how system 1 (intuitive thinking) influences decision making, and the effect of an anchor on participants’ mathematical estimates.
tversky & kahneman procedure
- High school students asked to estimate the value of a math problem in 5 seconds.
- Ascending condition: 1 x 2 x … x 8
- Descending condition: 8 x 7 x … x1
- Due to the time pressure and the left-to-right reading direction, researchers hypothesised that participants would anchor on the first number they saw.
tversky & kahneman results
- Ascending group (anchor=1): median estimated=512.
- Descending group (anchor=8): median estimated=2250.
- Actual value=40320
- Participants in the descending group gave higher estimates, suggesting they were influenced by the higher initial anchor.
tversky & kahneman conclusion
Participants used system 1 processing to make quick judgments based on the first number (the anchor), rather than using effortful, logical system 2 thinking. This supports the idea that intuition and heuristics play a key role in rapid decision making under time constraints.
tversky & kahneman advantages
+Simple and high controlled design-> strong internal validity.
+Easily replicable-> supports reliability of findings.
+Clear causal interference: anchor likely influenced estimates.
+Use of median-> reduces impacts of outliers on data.
tversky & kahneman limitations.
-Low ecological validity-> artificial task and time limit not reflective of real life.
-Limited generalisability-> questionable applicability to real world situations.
-Independent samples design-> participant variability may have affected results.
-No control for maths ability-> matched pairs design would reduce this confound.
english & mussweiler aim
To investigate whether a legal expert’s sentencing decision could be influenced by a numeric anchoring (a suggested prison sentence) and to explore the role of intuitive processing in courtroom decisions.
english & mussweiler procedure
- Participants were 19 young trial judges (average 9 months experience).
- All judges were given the same rape case, but were placed randomly into one of two conditions:
- High anchor: prosecutor recommended 34 months.
- Low anchor: prosecutor recommended 2 months.
- Judges read the case, then answered the questions:
- Do you think that the sentence was too low, adequate, or too high?
- What sentence would you recommend?
- How certain are you about your sentencing decision? (1-9).
- How realistic do you think this case is? (1-9).
english & mussweiler results
- High anchor group average sentence: 27.80 months.
- Low anchor group average sentence: 18.78 months.
- Judges knew the case was realistic (avg.7/9).
- Judges weren’t very confident in their sentencing (avg. 4.3/9).
english & mussweiler conclusion
The anchor influenced judges’ final decisions even though the cases were the same. This shows reliance on system 1 thinking (anchoring bias) consisting of heuristics in decision making under uncertainty, rather than deliberate system 2 reasoning.
english & mussweiler advantages
+True experiment-> allows for cause-and-effect interference between anchor value and sentencing.
+Use of pilot group-> ensured anchors were reasonable and served as a control (system 2 vs system 1 thinking).
+Judges’ low confidence suggests some awareness of external influence-> supports internal validity.
english & mussweiler limitations
-Independent samples design-> participant variability may have acted as a confounding variable.
-Small sample size-> limits generalisability.
-Participants lacked courtroom experience-> findings may only apply to younger, less experienced judges.
