Final Exam Study Guide
Final Exam Study Guide PSY-4073-5073-001
Arkansas Tech University
Popular in Cognitive Psychology
Popular in Psychlogy
This 6 page Study Guide was uploaded by Krista Lindenberg on Monday April 25, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to PSY-4073-5073-001 at Arkansas Tech University taught by Steven Andrew Berg in Winter 2016. Since its upload, it has received 36 views. For similar materials see Cognitive Psychology in Psychlogy at Arkansas Tech University.
Reviews for Final Exam Study Guide
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 04/25/16
Exam 4 study guide ➢ Problem Solving o Well defined there is at least one correct answer Certain procedures will lead to solution (2+2=4 or like in a multiple choice test only one is right) o vs. illdefined problems Accuracy or correctives does not apply Path is not clear to solution. (Which is a better beverage, or which restaurant is best, etc.) Gray area for problems with definite answers, but many paths to solve it. o In development ▪ Visual cliff In the visual cliff two infants, one with experience in crawling and one without, were put to the test of getting to other side, but had a “cliff.” child with experience would unlikely attempt to crawl to the other side. Experience in the world can influence if we recognize a problem or not. ▪ Theory of mind children learn to take on the perception of another person ▪ Egocentrism Unable to take on the perception of another person. (volcano video) ▪ Conservation kids learn to incorporate info. from multiple sources into their own problem solving. More developed and mature. ▪ Centration The inability to recognize that a change in appearance does not equal change in physical properties of the object. Like pouring the same amount of juice into a diff. cup makes it more when in reality it does not. Less developed; locking in on wrong aspect of the problem o The Gestalt Approach ▪ Representation represented problem in mind by perceiving features and properties of the obstacle. ▪ Reorganizationrestructure or reorganization the properties in the problem o Insightassociated with reorganization and restructuring of info in problem solving. Sudden realization of solution. Use the examples of how to put a candle on the wall with only a match box, and a few thumbtacks… or the triangle and moving three points to make it point down, (Dr. Berg said to not worry about the sleep aspect of it I asked) ▪ In a classic experiment demonstrating functional fixedness, Duncker (1945) gave participants a candle, a box of thumbtacks, and a book of matches, and asked them to attach the candle to the wall so that it did not drip onto the table below. Duncker found that participants tried to attach the candle directly to the wall with the tacks, or to glue it to the wall by melting it. Very few of them thought of using the inside of the box as a candleholder and tacking this to the wall. In Duncker's terms, the participants were "fixated" on the box's normal function of holding thumbtacks and could not reconceptualize it in a manner that allowed them to solve the problem. For instance, participants presented with an empty tack box were two times more likely to solve the problem than those presented with the tack box used as a container o Fixation relates to a tendency to focus on a specific feature of the problem in a way that keeps us from arriving at a solution. o Functional fixednessLImit our use of an object to the functions that we know are most familiar. o Informationprocessing approach consistent with approach taken by Gestalt theorists, the IP approach maintains that Problem solving depends on how the problem is represented in the mind ▪ Meansend analysisApproach problem solving as the transition from an initial state to some desirable goal state with intermediate states in the middle. ▪ Transition above is accomplished by gradually reducing the diff between initial and goal status so you conquer subgoals one step forward, two steps back. o Analogical problem solving ▪ Analogical transfer use knowledge from similar problems to solve current problem. ▪ 3 steps to problem solving (noticing, mapping, and applying) ● 1 noticing may need some prompting to notice the analogy between source and current problem. If increase in similar stories → increase in noticing. ● 2 mappingrecognizing elements that correspond between the source and target (problem) mentally links them. ● 3 applying generate a parallel solution from the source problem to the target. ▪ Surface features Specific elements of the problem paying attention to few features interferes with good analogical transfer. ▪ Vs. Structural features carry info. Related to the underlying principle that governs the solution to both of the problems. In this case the analogy that preservers surrounding structures while destroying the center. o The role of expertise (what sets them apart) Experts are acknowledged for their strong ability to practice and apply what they know about their particular topic. They tend to be faster and/or more accurate at solving problems related to their expertise than those who are novice to it. ▪ They possess more knowledge about their fields ● In chess a master can chuck to place the pieces in the right order, in random order, they are about a novice. ▪ Knowledge is organized differently Experts focus on structural features while novices focus on surface features. Novices fail to connect deeper principles. ▪ Experts tend to spend more time analyzing problems. o Creativity defined only by how we use it but some properties are typical. (innovative thinking, generation of novel ideas, establishing new links between existing concepts/ unique insights, and Inventions) ▪ Convergent thinking take steps towards a solution to specific problem good for welldefined problems. ▪ Divergent thinkingtype of creativity used to solve problems openended thinking many possible strategies good for illdefined problems. ▪ Design fixation centrated on information and fixation on creation design among engineering students. Half of P’s shown image of cup with straw or mouthpiece instructed to try not to do what is shown. Those shown image ended up using straw or mainly mouthpieces in design. ➢ Reasoning and Decision Making – o Judgment ▪ Availability ● Refers to frequency information that is a central in drawing conclusions ● Particularly useful in making predictions ● Core element in reasoning by induction ● Ex. Easier to think of examples of the event after seeing many related stories. ● Ex. After seeing many news stories of home foreclosure people may predict it to happen more often than it actually does. ● Overestimation of event likelihood is a major pitfall of the heuristic ● Rare events are more memorable ▪ Anchoring ● Refers to the observation that people will use any available information as a reference for making decisions ● Tyersky and Kahneman (1973) o Participants observed a roulette wheel that was predetermined to stop on either 10 or 65. Participants were then asked to guess the percentage of the United Nations that were African nations. Participants whose wheel stopped on 10 guessed lower values (25% on average) than participants whose wheel stopped at 65 (45% on average) ▪ Representativeness ● Members of a category share traits ● We attribute category properties to the instance that is novel ● If an item is highly similar to the typical members of a category then category membership is easily determined ● This is a good strategy when: o groups are fairly homogenous and low variability of features among members o category overlap is low ▪ category distinction from other categories ▪ boundary between categories is broad ● commonly leads to errors when: o reasoning from a population to an instance ▪ I toss a coin six times; if it is heads all six times, on the seventh toss, is heads or tails more likely? ▪ If participants respond more likely to be tails, this is the gambler’s fallacy (“something's gotta give”….right? not. Chance is still the law, not luck.) o Reasoning from an instance to a population ▪ (Hamill et al.) had participants watch a video of a prison guard being either compassionate or contemptuous ▪ Control group was told nothing ▪ Group 2 was told this is atypical behavior. ▪ Group 3 was told this is normal behavior. ▪ All three group reports were still consistent with what they saw in the video: totally disregarding what they are told. o Base rates ▪ Varies with three factors ● Expectation that chance plays a role in the events ● Whether or not the information highlights the use of sampling so observers understand that the data is a sample ● Background beliefs about the homogeneity or heterogeneity of opinion sets. o Reasoning ▪ Induction vs. deduction ● Deduction o Generalities and populations cases and instances o General specific ● Induction o Cases and instances generalities and populations o Specific general ▪ Confirmation bias ● 3 ways humans do not conform to scientific methodologies; looking for information in the world o Seek evidence consistent with the their beliefs o They fail to use disconfirming evidence that is available o They show a memory bias toward confirming evidence ▪ Perseverance of belief ● Retrieve memories consistent with their current belief; looking for information in memory ● People do a memory search for information consistent with the belief; confirming evidence is what they find o Deductive logic ▪ Premises, conclusions ● Deductive logic is based on the form of the arguments; given that the premises are true, the conclusions are guaranteed to be accurate ▪ Modus Ponens ● P1: If x, then y ● P2: x is true ● C: therefore y must be true ▪ Modus Tollens ● P1: If P, the Q ● P2: Q is false ● C: therefore, P must be false. ▪ Conditional syllogisms: Have two premises and a conclusion like categorical syllogisms, but the first premise has the form "If...then." ● Syllogism 1: Affirming the antecedent o P1: If I study, then I’ll get a good grade. o P2: I studied. o C: Therefore I’ll get a good grade. o (Is it valid? yes.) ● Syllogism 2: denying the consequent o P1: If I study, then I’ll get a good grade. o P2: I didn’t get a good grade. o C: Therefore I didn’t study ● Syllogism 3: Affirming the consequent o P1: If I study, then I’ll get a good grade. o P2: I got a good grade o C: Therefore I studied. o (Is it valid? No.) ● Syllogism 4: Denying the Antecedent o P1: If I study, then I’ll get a good grade. o P2: I didn’t study. o C: Therefore I didn’t get a good grade. o (Is it valid? No.) ▪ Categorical syllogisms: Premises and conclusions are statements that begin with All, No, or Some ● Syllogism 1 o P1: All bipeds have 2 legs. o P2: All humans are bipeds. o C: Therefore all humans have two legs. o (Is it valid? Yes.) ● Syllogism 2 o P1: All humans are people o P2: Some animals are human. o C: therefore some animals are people. o (is it valid? Yes.) ● Syllogism 3 o P1: Some people are women. o P2: All people are humans. o C: Therefore some humans are not women. o (Is it valid? Yes.) o Falsification principle ▪ To test a rule, you must look for situations that falsify the rule. ▪ Wason's fourcard problem ● The Wason selection task (or fourcard problem) is a logic puzzle devised by Peter Cathcart Wason in 1966. It is one of the most famous tasks in the study of deductive reasoning. An example of the puzzle is: ● You are shown a set of four cards placed on a table, each of which has a number on one side and a colored patch on the other side. The visible faces of the cards show 3, 8, red and brown. Which card(s) must you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red? ● A response that identifies a card that need not be inverted, or that fails to identify a card that needs to be inverted, is incorrect. The original task dealt with numbers (even, odd) and letters (vowels, consonants). ● The test is of special interest because people have a hard time solving it in most scenarios but can usually solve it correctly in certain contexts. In particular, researchers have found that the puzzle is readily solved when the imagined context is policing a social rule. ● The correct response is to turn over the 8 and the brown card. o The rule was "If the card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red." Only a card with both an even number on one face and something other than red on the other face can invalidate this rule: o If the 3 card is red (or brown), that doesn't violate the rule. The rule makes no claims about odd numbers. o If the 8 card is brown, it violates the rule. o If the red card is odd (or even), that doesn't violate the rule. The red color is not exclusive to even numbers. o If the brown card is even, it violates the rule. ● The interpretation of "if" here is that of the material conditional in classical logic, so this problem can be solved by choosing the cards using modus ponens (all even cards must be checked to ensure they are red) and modus Tollens (all nonred cards must be checked to ensure they are noneven). o The paradox of choice ▪ Decision paralysis ● Too many choices available ● Overwhelmed, paralyzed in thinking, not able to decide ▪ Postdecision lament ● With so many options, choosers believe they should be able to find one that is near “perfect” ● Dissatisfaction with choice due to recognition of attractive features of option(s) not chosen. o Cognitive dissonance ▪ Effect of inconsistency; tension ▪ In a state of cognitive dissonance, people are motivated to reduce tension ▪ Solution: change one or more of the conflicting attitudes and behaviors ▪ Festinger peg turning table video example o Frederick's Cognitive Reflection Test ▪ Short psychological task designed to measure a person's tendency to override an initial "gut" response that is incorrect, and to engage in further reflection to find a correct answer. ▪ According to Frederick, there are two general types of cognitive activity. The first is executed quickly without reflection, the latter requires conscious thought and effort. These are labelled "system 1" and "system 2" respectively. The Cognitive Reflection Test consists of three questions that each have an obvious response that activates system 1, but which is incorrect. The correct response requires the activation of system 2. However, in order for system two to be activated, a person must note that their first answer is incorrect, which requires them to reflect upon their own cognition ▪ In the original test penned by Dr. Frederick contained only the three following questions ● A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? _____ cents ● If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets? _____ minutes ● In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake? _____ days ● The answers are: 5 cents, 5 minutes, and 47 days. ➢ Social Cognition – o The Florida effect ▪ In the study that became the namesake for the Florida Effect, subjects were asked to arrange words into a sentence. One group of subjects had random words. The other group of subjects had words that might be associated with the elderly. “Florida,” was one of them, as was “forgetful,” “bald,” “gray,” and “wrinkle.” (Apologies to those older readers who think the words should have been more along the lines of “retired,” “monthlong vacations,” “grandchildren,” “paidoff mortgage,” and “thank god the kids have moved out.” I didn’t run the study.) ▪ After they had finished arranging the words, the subjects were asked to walk down a short hall to another room to fill out a form. Researchers timed the walk, and found that people who had had the “old” words walked more slowly than the ones that had had neutral words. They walked more slowly even though in interviews none of the people said they felt old, and none of them even saw a theme in the words they were arranging. And the Florida Effect was born. o Priming the concept of "money" ▪ Kathleen Vohs looked at what happens when Ps are subconsciously primed on “money” ▪ Basic Findings: ● More independent than they be without the associative trigger ● Money primes individualism ▪ When primed on money: ● P’s persevered almost twice as long before asking for help on a task ● P’s spend less time helping another student who pretended to be confused about task ● Less likely to help you, or will help less ● Greater preference for being alone ➢ Graduate student presentations Know the primary vocabulary terms for each project Understand the general gist of their message/demonstration
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'