Cognition - Exam 4

PSY 310 - Cognition (Ch. 10, 12, 13)

generative nature of language

the ability to create new words and put them into new sequences; number of sequences that can be created is endless

phonology

the sequence of phonemes that make up the word

orthology

the spelling of the word

syntax

allows us to put words in appropriate combinations; also involves understanding the referent (object action, or event that a word refers to)

semantics

the meaning of the word

grammar

rules on how words are used (e.g. make something plural, past tense)

overregularization

applying grammar rules incorrectly to the exceptions to the rule (e.g. i “goed” to the store)

prescriptive

how language is supposed to be

descriptive

how language actually is

phrase structure

includes a noun phrase (NP) and a verb phrase (VP); NP comes before a VP; NP includes noun but also often includes an adjective; VP often includes a secondary noun (and adjective)

ambiguous sentences

when phrase structure results in a sentence having more than one interpretation

parsing sentences

we do it as sentences are being heard/read, not after the sentences is over

garden path sentences

when we start interpreting a sentence one way but at some point realize we are wrong; must stop to reinterpret

prosody

rhythm, intonation, pronunciation; reveals mood of speaker, directs listener’s attention, clears up ambiguity, and indicates intent

pragmatics

knowledge about how language is used (taking turns in a conversation; intentions of conversation, unspoken implications, context, presuppositions)

broca’s area

in left frontal lobe; responsible for language production

wernicke’s area

in left temporal lobe; responsible for language comprehension

nonfluent aphasia

damage to the broca’s area; results in inability to produce language

fluent aphasia

damage to the wernicke’s area; inability to understand language or produce language that makes sense

what’s involved in thinking

making decisions, making inferences, considering implications

judgment

a type of thinking that involves drawing conclusions from information (evidence) that we encounter

frequency estimate

making judgements by thinking about the frequency of an event occurring in the past

attribute substitutions

using a proxy (substitute) that we believe is correlated with the desired information

availability heuristics

how easily we can come up with examples of an event or object; ease is used as a substitute for frequency

Schwartz et al. (1991)

• study in which people had to come up with specific examples of them acting aggressively

• one group had to come up with 6 examples, the other had to come up with 12

• found that the first group used availability heuristic because it was easier for them to come up with examples

availability heuristic problem

people regularly overestimate the frequency or probability when using the availability heuristic (e.g. overestimate the likelihood of winning the lottery)

representativeness heuristic

used when making a judgement about a category; judgement is based on how well something represents a particular category; resemblance is used as a substitute for frequency

gambler’s fallacy

assumption that if the coin in a series of coin tosses is fair, then multiple tosses will have an equal chance of heads or tails; if result is heads too many times in a row, then tails is “overdue”

“man who” arguments

when we think that what is true of one instance is true of the entire category

heuristics

a shortcut in thinking; tend to use them to make judgements due to efficiency; many times lead to correct judgements

covariation

when heuristics also influence how people make judgements about how two things are related to each other

illusory correlation

detection of a relationship where none actually exists (e.g. astrological signs and compatibility)

confirmation bias

attending to information that confirms our belief and ignore information that challenges

base rate fallacy

failing to take into account how frequently something happens as a whole, results in illusory correlations

5 effects of confirmation bias

1. seek out evidence that confirms

2. fail to use disconfirming evidence when presented

3. accept confirming evidence at face-value; scrutinize disconfirming evidence (reinterpret, explain away, or diminish importance)

4. better recall for confirming evidence

5. fail to consider alternative hypotheses that explain data as well

conditional statements

a logical statement where the truth value of P determines the truth value of Q

conditional statement errors

• affirming the consequent (Y): if X is true, Y is true; Y is true; therefore, X is true

• denying the antecedent (X): if X is true, Y is true; X is not true; therefore, Y is not true

Wason’s four card task

participants imagine which of four cards, each of which has a letter on one side and a number on the other, one would have to turn over to determine whether a statement about the cards is true or false; less than 10% of participants found the correct solution

utility maximization

choosing the option with the greatest expected value (highest benefit)

framing effect

our assessment of “maximum value” can be influenced by how a question is presented

risk-seeking

hope to avoid or minimize loss

risk-avoiding

cling to what one already has

ways framing can be changed

number of options, the question itself, evidence

reason-based choice

decide what we find reasonable and justifiable

Redelmeir and Shefir (1995)

• gave physicians a description of a patient

  • group 1: choice between one medication and surgery 

  • group 2: choice between two potential medications and surgery

  • group 2 was more likely to pick surgery due to too many options

affective heuristic

using somatic markers as a guide to our “gut feelings,” assess risk based on emotion

affective forecasting

help us predict how a decision will make us feel in the future; we are good at determining the valence of the emotion (positive/negative) but worse at predicting other aspects

problem solving

the process in which a person begins with a goal and seeks some steps that will lead toward that goal

kinds of problems we solve

pragmatic, social, academic

initial state of problem solving

the resources and knowledge you have at the outset

goal state of problem solving

the outcome you are working toward

operators of problem solving

available tools or resources

path constraints of problem solving

limitations that rule out some operations

problem space

the set of all states that can be reached in solving a problem, as the problem solver moves, by means of the problem’s operations, from the problem’s initial state toward its goal state

problem solving strategies

strategies that narrow your search through the problem space that still leads to the problem’s solution

algorithms

step-by-step procedure used to determine every possible solution to a problem; will get us to the answer of a problem but takes time and effort

trial-and-error

trying different solutions until something works; also takes time and effort

hill-climbing strategy

at each point, you choose the option that moves you in the direction of your goal; sometimes have to move away from the goal to get there

means-end analysis

compare your current status to your desired status and ask, “what means do I have to make these more alike?”

analogous problem solving

using analogies to solve problems; involves focusing on the problem’s “deep structure” instead of the superficial features

mapping

the process of figuring out how aspects of one situation or argument correspond to aspects of some other situation or argument

insight

having a sudden and clear understanding of how to solve a problem; an “aha!” moment

fixation in problem solving (einstellung)

running limitations in problem solving because we become fixated on a specific aspect of the problem; leads us to create a mental set and prevents us from seeing the problem from a different perspective

functional fixedness

a cognitive bias where people tend to perceive objects only in terms of their typical, intended function, limiting their ability to see alternative uses

three glass problem

• three glasses of liquid: one with 8 oz, one with 5 oz, and one with 3 oz; participants are to divide the liquid so that there are 2 servings with 4 oz each

• most people simply pour liquid from one glass to another in hopes of stumbling across a solution 

• the actual solution entails thinking about the space left in each glass