1
Q
Classical theory of categorization
Prior history
A
- Disjunctive concpets (which require at least 1 attribute is present), which are the rarest are also the hardest to learn
2
Q
Classical theory of categorization
Main claim
A
Categories are defined by a set of features that are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for category membership
3
Q
Classical theory of categorization
Competing theory and how it differs
A
- Prototype theory - the set of features are characteristic and not defining
- Explains the typicality effect
4
Q
Classical theory of categorization
Data undermining the theory
A
- People agree that cars seats are chairs, whcih are furniture, but car seats are not furniture
- The Typicality effects
5
Q
Classical theory of categorization
Major weakness
A
- It is impossible to define the necessary and sufficient features for some categories
- Strict hierachy doesn’t always exist
6
Q
Classical theory of categorization
Similar theory and one of its features
A
Essentialism: Both theories state that there are immutable characteristics that define a category and those features are not dependent on context
7
Q
Classical theory of categorization
2 characteristic features
A
- Category membership is binary
- Concpets can be organized in a hierachy of inclusion relations
8
Q
Exemplar/instance-based theory
Prior history
A
Prototype theory
9
Q
Exemplar/instance-based theory
Main claim
A
Category membership depends on similarity to a set of stored exemplars
10
Q
Exemplar/instance-based theory
Competing theory
A
Classical theory - Does not depend on similarities but specific features that have to be present
11
Q
Exemplar/instance-based theory
Data supporting the theory
A
- Participantssay more often that a 18-inch object is a pizza than a ruler because rulers usually don’t vary in size but pizzas do
- A prototype would be insufficient because both have the same average size
12
Q
Exemplar/instance-based theory
Major strenght of the theory
A
Can explain typicality effects
13
Q
Exemplar/instance-based theory
Similar theory and one major feature
A
Prototype theory: Both theories state that categorization is based on similarity
14
Q
Exemplar/instance-based theory
2 characteristic features
A
- Many exemplars for each category are stored in memory
- Objects are matched in parallel with all stored instances to compute similarity
15
Q
Protoype theory
Prior history
A
Classical theory
16
Q
Protoype theory
Main claim
A
Category membership depends on similarity to a prototype, which is the most typical member of the category
17
Q
Protoype theory
Competing theory and how it differs
A
Classical theory: Assumes binary category membership
18
Q
Protoype theory
Data supporting the theory
A
- Objects more similar to the prototype get identified faster
- People tend to list characteristics, not defining features, of categories
19
Q
Protoype theory
Major weakness
A
- Some abstract concepts do not show prototype structure
- The theory assumes people use only fairly superficial features, but they may use more central ones instead
20
Q
Protoype theory
Similar theory and major features
A
Exemplar-based theory: Both theories state that categorization is based on similarity
21
Q
Protoype theory
2 characteristic features
A
- The features of a prototype are characteristic, not necessary
- Category boundaries are fizzy, not absolute
22
Q
Explanation-based theory
Prior history
A
Exemplar-based theory
23
Q
Explanation-based theory
Main claim
A
To categorize objects, people use common-sense explanations, motivated by their intuitive theories about the world
24
Q
Explanation-based theory
Data suporting the theory
A
- The Dyirbal aboriginal tribe classifies nouns into meaningful categories, which are neither rule- nor similarity-based. They are knowledge based
25
Explanation-based theory
| Major strength
* Explains why classification can vary between contexts - different attributes (central or superficial) will be used
* Explains why some concepts seem natural and others not - for the former an explanatory theory or theories can be found
26
Explanation-based theory
| Similar theory and one of its features
**Exemplar-based theory:** Both theories rely on stored information about objects from past experiences
27
Explanation-based theory
| 2 charcteristic features
* The common-sense explanations specify what attributes are used (superficial or central)
* Concepts are not isolated from knowledge
28
Essentialism
| Prior history
Prototype theory
29
Essentialism
| Main claim
Objects belong to categories due to having essential, inherent features that define them
30
Essentialism
| Competing theory and how it differs
**Prototype theory:** Assumes that superficial attributes are used for categorization
31
Essentialism
| Data supporting the theory
Students with non-essentialist beliefs have higher thresholds for categorizing biracial faces as white
32
Essentialism
| Application
Can be applied to explain race essentialism, genetic essentialism and gender/sexual-orientation views
33
Essentialism
| Similar theory and one of its features
Classical theory: Both see categories as immutable
33
Essentialism
| 2 characteristic features
* Deep, essential, immutable attributes define an objects features
* Causal relations are emphazised, instead of similarities
34
Representional Change theory
| Prior history
Gestalt theory, extended by this theory
35
Representional Change theory
| Main claim
Initially, a problem is represented mentally. After that an unconcious search for mental operators leads to the selection of the most strongly activated operator
36
Representional Change theory
| Competing theory and how it differs
**Problem space hypothesis**: Assumes problems are solved by moving from initial to goal state
37
Representional Change theory
| Data supporting the theory
In the Roman matchstick numeral problem, peoples initial representation introduces unneccesary contraints that reduce performance
38
Representional Change theory
| Major Weakness
Underestimates the range of strategies used to solve insight problems
39
Representional Change theory
| Similar theory and one of its features
**Mental model theory:** Both discuss how behavior is guided by mental representations (rather than by cognitive processes)
40
Representional Change theory
| 2 characteristic features
* An impasse can be overcome by constraint relaxation, elaboration or re-encoding
* The process representation change to search to impasse is a cycle
41
Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving
| Prior history
Gestaltists dominated the early research on problem solving
42
Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving
| Main claim
Novel/ill-defined problems are solved using insight
43
Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving
| Competing theory and how it differs
Problem space hypothesis: Problems are solved gradually by moving from the initial to the goal state
44
Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving
| Data supporting the theory
* Self-reports of warmth progressively increase during non-insight problems, and suddenly in insight problems
45
Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving
| Major weakness
Assumes that insight always produces correct solutions, but this is false
46
Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving
| Similar theory and one of its features
**Representional Change Theory:** Both theories assume that insight occurs after a change in the mental representation of a problem
47
Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving
| 2 characteristic features
* Special-process viewpoint: Insight is fundamentally different from other cognitive processes
* Insight involves a restructering of the problems mental representation
48
Problem space theory
| Prior history
Identified the hill climbing and means-end analysis heuristics
49
Problem space theory
| Main claim
Problems are solved by starting from an initial state and aiming to reach the goal state by using different mental operations
50
Problem space theory
| Competing theory and how it differs
**Representional change theory:** Assumes problem solving is facilitated by insight moments based on representional changes
51
Problem space theory
| Data supporting the theory
People engage in limited planning during Towers of Hanoi due to limited WM capacity
52
Problem space theory
| Major weakness
Newell and Simon relied on artificial problems to prove this theory
53
Problem space theory
| Similar theory and one feature
**Cognitive miser model:** Both emphasize use of heuristics
54
Problem space theory
| 2 characteristic features
* Heuristics are used to problem-solve due to limited processing capacity
* Algorithms are rarely used
55
Johnsohn-Laidts mental model theory
| Main claim
When reasoning/problem-solving people contsruct mental models that represent the problem/situation at hand
56
Johnsohn-Laidts mental model theory
| Competing theory and how it differs
Tripartite model: Focuses on cognitive processes and individual differences
57
Johnsohn-Laidts mental model theory
| Data supporting this theory
* WM (especially central executive and visuospatial sketchpad) are involved in constructing mental models
* WM capacity correlates with syllogistic reasoning performance
58
Johnsohn-Laidts mental model theory
| Major weakness
* Weak at rejecting responses people do not produce
* Processes involved in forming mental models are underspecified
59
Johnsohn-Laidts mental model theory
| Similar theory and one of its features
**Representional change theory:** Both theories discuss the role of mental representations in guiding behavior
60
Johnsohn-Laidts mental model theory
| 2 characteristic features
* Principle of truth - Mental models represent whats true but not whats false
* Mental models have the same structure as the represented event/location
61
Dual-system/process theory
| Prior history
Mental model theory
62
Dual-system/process theory
| Main claim
Distinguishes between 2 systems/processes: One intuitive system and one deliberate system
62
Dual-system/process theory
| Competing theory and how it differs
**Logical intuition model:** Allows for logical and heuristic type 1 responses
63
Dual-system/process theory
| Data supporting the theory
People exhibit less belief bias when they have more time
64
Dual-system/process theory
| Major Weakness
It is not always true that type 1 processes lead to wrong answers and that type 2 processes lead to correct answers
65
Dual-system/process theory
| Similar theory and one of its features
**Tripartite model:** Also distinguishes between 2 broad classes of cognitive processes
66
Dual-system/process theory
| 2 characteristic features
* **System 1:** Fast autonomous, no WM, unconcious
*** System 2:** Slow, controlled involves WM, concious, controlled, correlated with IQ
67
Tripartite model
| Prior history
High IQ participants perform better on deductive reasoning tasks. A model was needed to explains IQs impact on reasoning
68
Tripartite model
| Main claim
DIstinguishes between autonomous (type 1) mind and algorithmic and reflective minds (type 2)
69
Tripartite model
| Competing theory and how it differs
**Mental model theory:** Focuses on mental representations instead of cognitive processes
70
Tripartite model
| Data undermining the theory
There is much overlap between rationality and intelligence (r=0.6) which the model assumes to be seperate
71
Tripartite model
| Major strenght
Explains individual differences in reasoning
72
Tripartite model
| Similar theory and one of its features
**Dual-process models:** Both theories distinguish between 2 broad types of cognitive processes
73
Tripartite model
| 2 characteristic features
* The reflective mind decides if type 2 processes are to be used
* The algorithmic mind overrides incorrect heuristic responses made by the autonomous mind
74
Multi-attribute theory
| Main claim
Explains approximation to ideal decision-making with a 6-step model, rating each option on a number of attributes
75
Multi-attribute theory
| Competing theory and how it differs
**Elimination-by-aspect theory:** People eliminate options by considering 1 attribute after the other
76
Multi-attribute theory
| Data undermining the theory
When people choose between many flats, they first reduce the number by using simpler strategies, they satisfice
77
Multi-attribute theory
| Application
People use this theory when choosing between relatively few options
78
Multi-attribute theory
| SImilar theory and one of its features
**Expected utility theory:** Both are normative and focus on optimising the final outcome
79
Multi-attribute theory
| 2 characteristic features
* Every attribute has a different weight
* All attributes are used simultaneously
80
Support theory of judgment
| Prior history
Based on the concept of availability heuristics
81
Support theory of judgment
| Main claim
An event appears more or less likely depending on how it is described
82
Support theory of judgment
| Competing theory and how it differs
**Expected utility theory:** Doesn't allow for solution-irrelevant details to influence decision making
83
Support theory of judgment
| Data supporting the theory
Subadditivity effect
84
Support theory of judgment
| Major weakness
Doesn't explain why providing an explicit description increases and event's subjective probability
85
Support theory of judgment
| Similar theory and one of its features
**Prospect theory:** The presentation of an event/question influences our judgments and decisions
86
Support theory of judgment
| 2 characteristic features
* We must distinguish between events and their description
* Predicts the subadditivity effect
87
Expected utility theory
| Prior history
Normative theories assumption that people make rational decisions that they should be making
88
Expected utility theory
| Main claim
When choosing between several options, we try to maximize utility (subjective value attached to an outcome
89
Expected utility theory
| Competing theory and how it differs
**Prospect theory:** Doesn't assume rational decision-making, but acknowledges framing, loss & risk aversion
90
Expected utility theory
| Data undermining the thoery
The fact that risk and loss aversion exist
91
Expected utility theory
| Major weakness
Cannot explain framing effects
92
Expected utility theory
| Similar theory and one of its features
**Game theory:** Also proposes that people make rational decisions
93
Expected utility theory
| 2 characteristic features
* Expected utility = P(outcome) x Utility of outcome
* People compute expected utility for all options and make an economically rational decision
94
Prospect theory
| Prior history
Expected utility theories inability to explain framing and loss & risk aversion
95
Prospect theory
| Main claim
People identify a reference pointrepresenting their current state. They treat losses and gains differently
96
Prospect theory
| Competing theory and how it differs
**Game theory:** Proposes that people start making rational decisions when they get experience with a task
97
Prospect theory
| Data upporting the theory
In the Asian Disease problem people preferentially choose options framed as certain gains and avoid options framed as certain losses
98
Prospect theory
| Major strenght
Can explain sunk-cost effects, risk & loss
99
Prospect theory
| Similr theory and one of its features
Support theory of judgment - The presentation of an event/question determines to an extent our judgments and decisions
100
Prospect theory
| 2 characteristic features
* When faced with the choice between certain or probable gains people are risk-averse
* When the choice is between certain or probable losses, people seek risks
101
Greene's dual-system theory of moral judgment
| Prior history
On personal (compared to inpersonal) moral dilemmas, people make more deontological judgments
102
Greene's dual-system theory of moral judgment
| Main claim
Whether people make deontological or utilitarian judgment is based on which system is used
103
Greene's dual-system theory of moral judgment
| Competing theory and how it differs
**CNI model:** Resolves some ambiguities by considering conseuences, moral norms, and preference for inaction
104
Greene's dual-system theory of moral judgment
| Data supporting the theory
Individuas making utilitarian judgments have higher DLPFC activity than those making deontological judgments
105
Greene's dual-system theory of moral judgment
| Major weakness
Oversimplified, participants making deontological judgments often process information relevant to ultilitarian judgments too
106
Greene's dual-system theory of moral judgment
| Similar theory and one of its features
**Social intuitionist model:** Allows that moral decisions are intuitive
107
Greene's dual-system theory of moral judgment
| 2 characteristic features
* System 1 is responsible for deontological jusgments
* System 2 is responsible for utilitarian judgments
108
Haidt's social intuitionist model
| Prior history
Rationalist models assume that moral judgment is caused by moral reasoning
109
Haidt's social intuitionist model
| Main claim
Moral judgment is quick and intuitive
110
Haidt's social intuitionist model
| Competing theory and how it differs
**Dual-process theory:** Allows for both intuitive and reflective processes
111
Haidt's social intuitionist model
| Data supporting htis theory
**Dumbfounding:** Sometimes people are unable to provide rational or logical explanations for their moral judgments
112
Haidt's social intuitionist model
| Application
Can explain why people with different political ideologies are polarized on moral topics
113
Haidt's social intuitionist model
| Similar theory and one of its features
**Prospect theory:** Also deemphasizes rational thinking
114
Haidt's social intuitionist model
| 2 characteristic features
* The immediate intuitive judgments are influenced by social and cultural factors
* Moral reasoning comes after the initial moral judgment and aims to justify it
115
Relationship regulation theories
| Prior history
Rational models theory
116
Relationship regulation theories
| Main claim
Moral motives, judgments and behavior regulate social relationships
117
Relationship regulation theories
| Data supporting the theory
Interpersonal obligations are sometimes conceptualized in moral terms
118
Relationship regulation theories
| Competing theory and how it differs
**Dual-system theory:** Explains moral judgments as influenced by intuitive and reflective processes
119
Relationship regulation theories
| Major Strenght
States that morality functions to sustain social relationships which can explain a broad domain of psychosocial phenomena
120
Relationship regulation theories
| Similar theory and one of its features
**Social intuitionist model:** Moral reasoning is done for socially strategic purposes
121
Relationship regulation theories
| 2 characteristic features
* 4 fundamental motives (unity, hierachy, equality and proportionality) are used
* Any action can be considered right in the framework of the right motive
122
Moral foundations theory
| Prior history
**Social intuitionist model:** One of the theories assumptions is that the model is true
123
Moral foundations theory
| Main claim
There are 5 psychological moral foundations on which people and cultures build their systems of morality
124
Moral foundations theory
| Competing theory and how it differs
**Dual-systems theory:** States that moral judgments are influenced by 2 types of cognitive processes
125
Moral foundations theory
| Data supporting the theory
Conservatives tend to use the binding foundations more than liberals
126
Moral foundations theory
| Major strenght
Explains cultural variations in moral judgments
127
Moral foundations theory
| Similar theory and one of its features
The theory of 3 ethics - Divinity, autonomy and community
128
Moral foundations theory
| 2 characteristic features
* Binding foundations - Loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion and purity/degradation
* Individualizing foundations - Care/harm and fairness/cheating
Complex Cognition
flashcards
Decks in class (11)
# Cards
