1 / 19

Cognitive Processes PSY 334

Cognitive Processes PSY 334. Chapter 11 – Judgment and Decision-Making. Inductive Reasoning. Processes for coming to conclusions that are probable rather than certain. As with deductive reasoning, people’s judgments do not agree with prescriptive norms.

zuriel
Download Presentation

Cognitive Processes PSY 334

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Cognitive ProcessesPSY 334 Chapter 11 – Judgment and Decision-Making

  2. Inductive Reasoning • Processes for coming to conclusions that are probable rather than certain. • As with deductive reasoning, people’s judgments do not agree with prescriptive norms. • Baye’s theorem – describes how people should reason inductively. • Does not describe how they actually reason.

  3. Baye’s Theorem • Prior probability – probability a hypothesis is true before considering the evidence. • Conditional probability – probability the evidence is true if the hypothesis is true. • Posterior probability – the probability a hypothesis is true after considering the evidence. • Baye’s theorem calculates posterior probability.

  4. Burglar Example • Numerator – likelihood the evidence (door ajar) indicates a robbery. • Denominator – likelihood evidence indicates a robbery plus likelihood it does not indicate a robbery. • Result – likelihood a robbery has occurred.

  5. Baye’s Theorem H likelihood of being robbed ~H likelihood of no robbery E|H likelihood of door being left ajar during a robbery E|~H likelihood of door ajar without robbery

  6. Baye’s Theorem P(H) = .001 from police statistics P(~H) = .999 this is 1.0 - .001 P(E|H) = .8 P(E|~H) = .01 Base rate

  7. Base Rate Neglect • People tend to ignore prior probabilities. • Kahneman & Tversky: • 70 engineers, 30 lawyers vs 30 engineers, 70 lawyers • No change in .90 estimate for “Jack”. • Effect occurs regardless of the content of the evidence: • Estimate of .5 regardless of mix for “Dick”

  8. Cancer Test Example • A particular cancer will produce a positive test result 95% of time. • If a person does not have cancer this gives a 5% false positive rate. • Is the chance of having cancer 95%? • People fail to consider the base rate for having that cancer: 1 in 10,000.

  9. Cancer Example Base rate P(H) = .0001 likelihood of having cancer P(~H) = .9999 likelihood of not having it P(E|H) = .95 testing positive with cancer P(E|~H) = .05 testing positive without cancer

  10. Conservatism • People also underestimate probabilities when there is accumulating evidence. • Two bags of chips: • 70 blue, 30 red • 30 blue, 70 red • Subject must identify the bag based on the chips drawn. • People underestimate likelihood of it being bag 2 with each red chip drawn.

  11. Probability Matching • People show implicit understanding of Baye’s theorem in their behavior, if not in their conscious estimates. • Gluck & Bower – disease diagnoses: • Actual assignment matched underlying probabilities. • People overestimated frequency of the rare disease when making conscious estimates.

  12. Frequencies vs Probabilities • People reason better if events are described in terms of frequencies instead of probabilities. • Gigerenzer & Hoffrage – breast cancer description: • 50% gave correct answer when stated as frequencies, <20% when stated as probabilities. • People improve with experience.

  13. Judgments of Probability • People can be biased in their estimates when they depend upon memory. • Tversky & Kahneman – differential availability of examples. • Proportion of words beginning with k vs words with k in 3rd position (3 x as many). • Sequences of coin tosses – HTHTTH just as likely as HHHHHH.

  14. Gambler’s Fallacy • The idea that over a period of time things will even out. • Fallacy -- If something has not occurred in a while, then it is more likely due to the “law of averages.” • People lose more because they expect their luck to turn after a string of losses. • Dice do not know or care what happened before.

  15. Chance, Luck & Superstition • We tend to see more structure than may exist: • Avoidance of chance as an explanation • Conspiracy theories • Illusory correlation – distinctive pairings are more accessible to memory. • Results of studies are expressed as probabilities. • The “person who” is frequently more convincing than a statistical result.

  16. Decision Making • Choices made based on estimates of probability. • Described as “gambles.” • Which would you choose? • $400 with a 100% certainty • $1000 with a 50% certainty

  17. Utility Theory • Prescriptive norm – people should choose the gamble with the highest expected value. • Expected value = value x probability. • Which would you choose? • A -- $8 with a 1/3 probability • B -- $3 with a 5/6 probability • Most subjects choose B

  18. Subjective Utility • The utility function is not linear but curved. • It takes more than a doubling of a bet to double its utility ($8 not $6 is double $3). • The function is steeper in the loss region than in gains: • A – Gain or lose $10 with .5 probability • B -- Lose nothing with certainty • People pick B

  19. Framing Effects • Behavior depends on where you are on the subjective utility curve. • A $5 discount means more when it is a higher percentage of the price. • $15 vs $10 is worth more than $125 vs $120. • People prefer bets that describe saving vs losing, even when the probabilities are the same.

More Related