Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
cognitive 2A
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| category | set of objects events, actract entites -> treated as equivalent in some way |
| concept | mental rep of a category, def used to decide if smthn part of category |
| why need categories | prevent info overload, make informed predics |
| problems w categories | overgeneralisations, stereotyping |
| theories of conceptual representation | 1. Definitional approach 2. Prototype approach 3. exemplar approach 4. theory/knowledge based approach |
| Definitional approach | - classical view, old - item must fall under category definition to be part of category - all membs equally good examples of category, all or nothing approach - eg triangle |
| definitional approach evaluation | - reductive, doesn't allow nuance or exceptions (dog w 3 legs) |
| Prototype approach | - probabilistic - concepts defined by resemblance to prototypical membs of category prototype = central, core experience of said category, average of all experience w that concept - graded membership = membs w closer resemblance to protoype = better |
| Prototype approach evaluation | +successfully/usefully applied + lead to typicality, basic level, fam resemblance - doesn't represent variability within category |
| typicality effect Rosch 1973 | Rosch 1973 - sentence verification task - ppl respond "yes" faster to more central membs/items - tested adults + children |
| typicality | extent to which smthn is typ memb of category (central = typical, peripheral = atypical) |
| typicality effect pölszler + hannikainen 2022 | - show typicality effect applies to abstract concepts (basic needs) - study 1 (free listing) + study 2 (rating) = mroe typical listen more freq, earleir on - study 3 (sentence ver task) = classified faster typ |
| Family resemblance | -Rosch + Mervis 1975 - most typical items = most traits in common (5 most typical furniture= 13 traits in common, least typ = 2 traits) - tendency for membs in cat to be similar to each other, w/o having any 1 characteristic common to all of them |
| basic level of categorisation | superordinate = most vague (furniture) basic = adequate specificity (chair) subordinate = most specific (kitchen chair) - basic = natural lvl objects named at - highest level where items share characteristics - first learned - experience* |
| Exemplar approach | - probabilistic - no prototype assumed, concepts stored by examples of cat prev encountered - concept made up of remembered examples |
| Exemplar approach evaluation | - represents variability |
| Probabilistic approaches | - blink + bayer 2022 - prototype + exemplar cats can be formed simultaneously - diff cog mechanisms underly categorisation - protype = parietal areas (mid brain) - exemplar = memory related (hippocamp, inferior temporal gyrus) |
| Theory/knowledge based approaches | - barsalou 1983,5 concepts = knowledge based, driven by inuitive/learned theories of world - explains ad hoc + goal derv - Rips et al 1989 round shape = pizza or quarter? pizza = most common answer, based on knowledge pizza more variable in size |
| ad-hoc and goal derived categories | - ad-hoc = spontaneously constructed novel categories (things to take to desert island) - goal derived = ad hoc, cats once ad hoc but established in men due to freq use (things to pack in suitcase) |
| Network models of knowledge representation | 1. Semantic Network Model 2. Hub + Spoke Model |
| Semantic Network Model | - Collins, Quillian, Loftus 1975 - each concept = node, connected bu pathways - memory retrieval = spreading activation (from og node to connected nodes) - pathways btwn nodes = have smthn in common - linked to typicality |
| Hub + Spoke Model | - Patterson et al 2007 - semantic knowledge = neural network consisting of hub + spoke - hub = central, amodal, assumed placed in anterior temporal lobes (ATL) - spokes = modality specific regions (motor, visual, words) |
| evidence of hub + spoke | those w semantic dementia = ATL atrophy, impairments across modalities + types of conceptual knowledge |
| mnemonic devices | techniquess/tools used to improve memory |
| 3 factors of mnemonic devices | worthen + hunt (2012) = organisation, elaboration, mental imagery |
| organisation | - connecting new info to existing info = key to long term memory - not necessarily abt what items have in common - org info better remembered than unorg |
| elaboration | - enriching info w details by connecting to prior knowledge - cant be connected to meaningful (relevant)/unmeaningful (random) -> aim= make smthn stick out |
| mental imagery | form of elaboration enahnaces mem espesh if interactive/bizarre mental imagery |
| memorisation techniques | method of loci, peg word method, link method |
| method of loci | 1. list of items to memorise 2. envisage familiar location 3. commit list of items to memory 4. plase items in diff spot within familiar locash retrieval = walkign through "mind palace" + find items/images left there -advan = independent item retr |
| peg word method | 1. learn list of words connecting w number (1 = bun, 2 = shoe) 2. form visual imagery of number word + item want to remember (info to remember hung on peg) - enhance serial learning - advan = can go back + forth btwn pegs, can recall items in any ord |
| link method | 1. form images of items wish to remember 2. link one image to the other, building a story disadvan = if forget one item, may not access rest of linked info |
| effectiveness of mnemonic devices | roediger 1980 - partips studies 3 lists of 20 words using rehearsal, simple imagery + MDs - immediate + delayed recall r = significant improvement in mem recall when partips use MDs - student sample - insufficient mastery of MDs |
| ericsson 2003 on memory athletes | memory athletes = right tools (MDs) + intensive practice |
| maguire et al (2003) | compared brain anatmoy + activation patterns in mem athletes and nonmem ath results: - no diff in brain anatomy - distinct brain activation patterns in mem athletes during memorisation (att = MDs) - method of loci = visuospatial areas |
| Dresler et al (2017) | mnemonic training in non-mem athletes. investigated functional connectivity in brain areas associated w mem + visuapsatial processing b4 and after training |
| dresler et al method | session 1 =partips memd 72wrds, free recall after 20 mins + 24 hrs - then assigned diff considhes (active traning = loci, active control = less effective MD, passive control = no MD) session 2 = 4 month follow up test of 72 words |
| dresler et al results | change in num of recalled words from sesh 1 MD traning condish = significantly higher amnt of word recall in all 3 tests |
| dresler et al fMRI findings | - neural changes in connectivity in MD group, similar to mem athletes, none in control group -resting state = btwn-network similarities btwn MD + mem athletes - encoding state = within-networksimilarities |
| Roediger, McDermott, Balota, Pyc (Unpublished) | - mem athletes outperform controls (undergrads from washing uni st louis US) in word/nonword task, WM task, stroop test (attentional control + inhibition) |
| alcohol | - derivatives of water where one H atom replaces w an alkyl group (R) - ethanol = comp used in alc bevs |
| prenatal alc exposure, fetal alcohol spectrum disorders | - diff to diagnose (facial = thin upper lip, no philtrum), rely on mother's self report, same symptoms caused by other factors (cig, other subst, malnut, inapp med care) - damage to child brain = neurogenesis + myelination, diff brain structs |
| cog impacts of FASD | - reduced intellectual ability (less than IQ 70, many FASD exceed) - reduced verbal/nonverbal IQ - attention def (early onset, diff shifting atten + encoding, less resp to some meds) - exec functs (behav + emosh reg probs, meta cog ctrl, task switch) |
| post natal alc exposure | - supressed neuron firing - diffs in brain structs in ados who binge drink + those who dont (accelerated decrease in grey matter, reduced increase in white matter - lees et al 2000 = impaired mem |
| post natal alc exposure - granato et al 2012 | red numb + duration of dendritic spiking in layer 5 pyramidal neurons (supressed neuron firing |
| alcohol + inhibition | - increase in inhib - alc mimics GABA (inhib neurtrans) > reduces neural excitation. incrs inhib, reduction in neurons firing - reduce stress, calm NS - tolerance = brain fighting against effects, increase firing to maintain vigilance |
| Alcohol Myopia Theory | Steele + Josephs, 1990 - mental short-sightedness - decide what most imp at one point (convo, reciting address to taxi) - increase focus on task = increased inhib BUT ALSO disinhib behav bcuz inability to respond to/consider mult stim |
| Alcohol effect on memory | - STM spared, episodic impaired - alc disrupts TRANSFER of info from STM to LTM (attkinson + shiffrin 1968) - impact hippocamp function, disrup binding + transfer of info back to neocortex |
| anterograde amnesia | - inability to create new mems when under inf - rapid spike in blood alc shuts down norm processing - MBO deps on quant + speed of consump (gender = males more water content, alc disperses in water content) |
| fragmentary mbo | - dont recall straight away - things come back spontaneously or when prompted by cue |
| en bloc MBO | - dont recall at all - cant retrieve bcuz didnt encode |
| differing vulnerability to mbos | - spear. 2018 - Jackson, Donaldsopn, Dering unpublished |
| spear, 2018 - vulnerability to MBOs | - binge drinking in ado > reduced cog inhib, elevated impulsivity, deficits in exec funct = predict alc use 3-6 yrs later - genetics play negligible role in instigation of ado drinking, inf increase drinking once started |
| Jackson, Donaldson + Dering (unpublished) | - 2 partip groups (no drink vs MBO once monthly - recog mem task - no diff in accurcy/performance on task - ERPs show diff neural signals for each type of respon - topographs show MBO group reduced familiarity resp (only def recollection) |
| Semantic Memory | general knowledge+ facts about world |
| Episodic Memory | - Memory for personal experiencess or episodes in life - Mental time travel (tulving 2002) Reexperience ones own experiences |
| Recall | - Ability to bring previously experienced/learned info to mind without cue Free recall, serial recall, cued recall |
| Free recall | Shown list of words, asked to remember + order doesn’t matter |
| Serial recall | Shown list ofwords, asked to recall in order they were presented |
| Cued recall | Show pairs of words, when tested shown one of the pair and asked to recall the other |
| Recognition | - Ability to recognise prev experienced/learned info with cue Familiarity, recollection |
| Familiarity | - Recognition w/o retrieval of contextual information When you know you should know but don’t |
| Recollection | - Conscious retrieval of details Sure you do remember |
| neuropsych impairments to understand episodic mem processes | korsakoffs syndrom - dementia-like symps - preventable, typically long term alcoholics (thymine + vit b1 deficiency) - reduced vol in hippocam > episodic mem impairment (Maillard et al 2021) alzheimers - Reduced hippocamp vol, connectivity |
| neuropsych impairments to understand Semantic dementia | ○ Damage to anterior temporal lobes ○ Struggle to access concepts, words meaning Can remember where + did yesterday -> able to access episodic mem |
| neuropsych impairments to understand Developmental amnesia | ○ Damage in hippocamp as child § Many = impairment to both semantic + episodic § As child = rely on episodic to encode semantic, don’t have as large of a semantic bank |
| Semanticisation of episodic of mem | - Experience event -> small detailts forgotten but gist remains, learn from experiences -> epsi mem w rich detail becomes semantic knowledge - Robin moscovitch (2017) ○ Probable that semantic + episodic rely on each other |
| Standard consolidation theory | - consolidation of mem trace (happens in sleep) - happens over night - connections btwn hippocamp + other regions = vital, where info stored - info bound = sent to neocrotex for storage - leave hippocamp to amke space for new mems |
| Prospective Memory | - Remembering to do things in future - Set intention to do something that hasn’t yet happened - Remembering to carry out intended actions Tied to events and times |
| Event-based prospective memory | Remember to carry out task when circumstances correct |
| Interruptions | impairment to prospec mem - Divert attention from task at hand, rapidly - New task takes all attention Problem = don’t know when distraction finishes, unable to cue return to original task |
| PAM Theory (preparatory attentional + memory processes theory) | - working mem at vigilance - success prospec = maintain WM response - process not automatic, constrained by WM cap - rely on retrospec = distinguish btwn target = non target actions |
| Multi-process theory | - Eventbased prospec involves strategic + automatic monitoring ○ Not relying on working mem Intentions can be retrieved spontaneously + just pop into mind |
| Autobiographical Memory | - Mem for events of own life functioning to define identity |
| Autonoetic memories | - Experiential memory ○ Last day of school, first day at campus |
| Infantile Amnesia | - Inability to recall autobio mems from early childhood - bio = insuff dev of hippocamp (70% of neurons) + frontal cortex @ infancy - cog = unable to und signif of event lang = exps happening b4 abil tp express = cant express later |
| Reminiscence bump | - Recall disprop numb of autobio mems from adolescence + early adulthood - novelty = stabillity - most pos events (life scripts, thigns imagined from young age) - period of identity form - consequential life choices, life development - dip l8r |
| time based prospective mem | - Remember to carry out task at certain time - Best to scaffold intention onto something concrete - Supports mem, know when right time to access (retrieve) - Sellen et al 1997 |
| Sellen et al 1997 | ○ Attaching mem to spec time or event ○ Press button every 2 hrs or every time go into room ○ No watches, clocks ○ note if thought about button ○ Ppl in time group = thought abt memory more often ○ Ppl in room group = way more acc |
| Pulses | - Intentions which are time locked ○ Ill meet my friend at 11, straight after this lec Event (lec) + time (11) |
| Steps | - Intent w wide timeframe ○ Going to buy card sometime today No event no fixed time |
| Intermediates | - Somewhat attached to event but no time Ill call mum during my lunch |
| Noetic memories | - Factual knowledge of self ○ I went to this school ○ I know that this happened |
| Copies | Vivid mems w lots of irrelevant detail |
| Reconstructions | Mems not accurate, include interpretations made w hindsight influence how remember |
| Generic mems | Location of usual family hoiday + experience of being there |
| Specific mems | - Particular event happened on last holiday |
| Field perspec | - Remembering event from own perspec |
| Internal Attention | internally generated thoughts + sensations, overlaps w other cog processes |
| External Attention | selection of info in our environ |
| Focused Attention | direct atten to partic stim + maintain focus for period of time |
| Divided Attention | Sharing attentional resources btwn more than opne task/modality (visual, auditory) |
| Dichotic Listening Paradigm | - studies in which multiple streams of auditory input are given to participant. streams must differ in some way to test attentional capabilities and tendencies |
| Shadowing | - repeating back what is heard as it is being heard |
| Broadbent’s Early Selection Model | - one of first info-processing models - sees cog processing syst as series of channels - dichotic listening = interference avoicded when partip told which stream imp (cocktail pp) - broadbent 1958 - |
| Treisman’s Attenuation Theory | - attention based on priority - treisman 1964 - attention filter = flexible, adapts to demands based on hierarchy of imp/difference |
| Resource Theory | - Kahneman 1973 - atten limited resource, directed/divided as required up to max limit - central processing unit = allows atten ot be flex across mult inputs |
| Dual-Task Paradigm | - division of atten - atten = limited rs divided btwn tasks - more similar tasks = lower perform (sharing atten + cog rs), comp for atten rs = wrse perform - challenges idea of single atten rs (multiple indp pools of atten, similar taks compete |
| Baddeley’s model of working memory | 1974 - central executive (directs attention) - episodic buffer (puts diff input into meaningful mem, merge w existing LTM stores) - visuospatial sketchpad (visual info storage) - phonological loop (auditory info storage) - a |
| Vigilance | - sustained attention - harder to sustain atten w higher WM load |
| Attention | William James = taking into mind one of many stim objects/trains of thought (focalisation, concentration, consciousness) focus on partic stim, ignore other stim |
| cocktail party problem | - cherry 1953 - hearing name when attending to other auditory stream - study: partips played diff auditory messages simult OR diff aud mess to each ear. asked to repeat only one voice after OR repeat message as being played (shadowing) |
| broadbent's early selection model PROS | -supports cherry's findings, unattended mess = filtered, only MINIMALLY processed - supported by dichotic listening task (cherry studies) = sets of numbs prioritised by ear (by stream of processing) rather than simult |
| early selection model CONS | - ppl can detect name even in unattended message - experienced shadows = detect reasonable amnt of detail from unattended message |
| triesmans attenuation theory studies | - one side of audio starts before other - partips told to repeat as much as poss from side started first - 9 conditions: - same voice, lang + diff text - m/f voice + same lang + diff text - m/f voice + diff langs - same voice + diff langs |
| triesman study findings | -diff in voice = partips reject irrelevant info more effish - same voice, diff lang = selection poss but not as effish as diff voice - same voice + lang = selection based on prob of word transition + context |
| triesman theory eval | - do hear meaningful info when not pay atten, do monitor unattended messages - dich list 1960 = 2 diff stories to 2 ears, switched stories to opp ears halfway, individs folloed story/messages content when ear switch occur, realsd shdwing wrng er + wentb |
| Late Selection Model | - Deutsch + Deutsch, 1963 - all info processed for meaning - selection happens late, at mem level - dont have to be aware/attend to mess for it to be processed - filter eliminated info even if already processed |
| late selection EVAL | - can accnt for processing of non-shadowed materia - better than broadbent's |
| evidence for resource theory | spotlight theory - LaBerfe 1983 - visual atten = spotlight which can be directed even wo eye mvmnt - overt shift of attn = moving eyes - covert = moving atten while keeping eyes fixed - how big spotlight exp by zoom lens theory (Eriksen ea 1985( |
| resource theory eval | - attention limit = not capacity of single central channel, rather atten = limited resource to disturb approp |
| dual task paradigm model | Wickens, 2002 - stages of processing (top) = percep, cog, response - processing modalities (left) = visual, audit - codes for how input processes (bottom left) - spatial, verbal - responses (top right) = manual/spatial, vocal/verbal |
| hakim et al 2020 | - atten + mem - lapses in atten = greater impact than duration of interval |
| sustained attention | Parasurman, 1979 1. successive discrimination = identify small change to same target (light brighter/larger) 2. simultaneous discrimination = a change to 1 target within an array of sim stim (1/5 lights change colour) |
| sensory mem | - info from environ - exp thru senses - transmitted quickly to brain thru elec impulses |
| WM | - works upon what laready known - lost or passed on (encoded) |
| LTM | - knowledge base of human brain - large amnts of info to be stored indefinitley |
| cog biases of info processing | - attentional bias - interpretive bias - memory bias |
| role of dep and anx in info processing | cog control impairments - eysenck et al 2007 = dep = diff in limit access of neg info in WM - jooyman et al 2007 = links to rumination impaired attentional disenagement - anx reduces WM cap - poor atten shiftin |
| attentional bias (cog bias) | - focus on threat inducing/neg stim comp to neutral/when presented w neutral - fast atten eng, slow diseng w threat stim - atten stge btwn sensory mem and WM |
| assessing attentional bias (cog bias) | - dot probe task - eye tracking dat |
| dot probe task (cog biases) | - focus on central fixation cross, then view 2 stim of diff emoshes - allocation of atten meas by record speed of atten to dot replacing pic - atten bias = shorter latency when dot replaces neg stim (faster to look at neg face) |
| dot probe task findings (cog bias) | - anx = strong atten bias (regardless is stim presented above/below conc awareness) - inc engagement = reduced diseng w neg stim = both contribute ind to atten bias anx = atten bias involves largely automatic, unconc processes - not as strong in dep |
| limitations of dot probe task (cog bias) | - depends on reaction time dat (key press latency) = imposs to know atten disengagement vs engagement - research showing validity/reliability issues of task = Chapman et al 2022 (difffereng dat as stim appear enough time atten go elsewhere b4 stim shown |
| dot probe task criticism studies (cog bias) | chapman et al 2019 thigpen et al 2018 meissel et al 2022 |
| eye tracking dat (cog bias) | armstrong + olatunji 2012 = partips eye mvnts trckedd while view displays of diff facial stim - anx = higher atten bias +sens to neg stim comp to ctrl - dep = lower sens to pos stim (longer to fixate on, less maintained atten) comp to ctrl |
| interpretive bias (cog bias) | - tendency to interp ambig sitches/stim as threat - WM stage - weaker evidence for dep and interp bias |
| assessing interp bias (cog bias) | homophone task ambiguous scenarios |
| homophone task (cog bias) | eysenck et al, 1987 - present words that sound same but diff spelling + meaning = threatening and nonthreatening (eg pane vs pain, dye vs die) - meas numb of threatening interps - as trait anx increases, so does numb of threatening homophone interps |
| ambig scenarios (cog bias) | walsh et al 2015 - presentation of ambig scenarios + meas numb of threatening interps (eg knowing less than peers at quiz, threat = feel stupid, non threat = bad luck) - anx = strong interp bias, partic in social and intellectual scenarios comp to he |
| interpretive bias = conscious and unconscious underlying processes (cog bias) | controlled conscious - calvo + castillo, 1997 = highly anx show interp bias @ 1250ms latency not 500 (more likely w more time) unconscious automatic - moser ea 2012 = n4 ERP = larger surprise to pos outcms of scenarios w ppl w social phobia |
| memory bias (cog bias) | - tendency to recal neg mems/info/details comp to pos/neutral - explicit mem bias = conscious recoll - implicit = unconc recoll - retrieval stage |
| ERPs | event related potentials |
| memory bias findings (cog bias) | anx - no implicit mem bias - weaker explicit mem bias (herrera et al 2017) dep - exp + imp mem bias found - taking holisuitc info processing apprsch (everaert ea 2020) |
| Theories of cognitive biases in mental health | 1. combined cognitive bias hypothesis 2. cognitive vulnerability hypothesis |
| combined cognitive bias hypothesis | - diff CBs are intercon - incrs in 1 = incrs in others findings - changes in atten bis thru training > chngs in interp bias + viceversa - changes in interp . chngs in mem + vv |
| cog vulnerability hypothesis | - dev of anx + dep due to disposition/vulnerability + neg life events findings, platt et al 2023 - neg interp bias @ age 9-14 predicted dep symptoms (not MDD onset) 30 mths ltr - only predicted if exp 4+ neg life events within 30 mths |
| therapy (cog bias + mental health) | cognitive bias modification |
| cognitive bias modification (cog bias + mental health) | chllnge = establish cause + effect relashe btwn cpg biases + dep/anx solush = test if training to reduce cog bias = redu dep/anx |
| cognitive bias modification training (cog bias + mental health) | -dot probe task (shift atten to pos stim) > attentional bias - ambig sentences (prsnt ambig sentences that primes following word fragment that can only be completed w pos/neutral word) > interp bias |
| cogntive bias modification findings | - strong effects of Db modification on anx, partic when targeting interp bias - less clear for dep |
| Dual-process theory | kahenman 2003 system 1 - automatic, fast proce - use of heuristics - effortless - implicit processing - more error prone - emosh af syst 2 - slow, serial proces - rules + algorithms - effortful - explicit - deliberation, controlld |
| Bounded rationality | simon 1957 - aim to make rational judgements and deci, but bounded byt cog limits and environ - ppl are rational within cog limits |
| Representativeness heuristic | - judge item/person as belong to spec cat because descrip suggests typ of that cat - conseq = neglecting base rate info in favour of descrip, content info - lawyer vs engineer (tversky + kahneman, 1973) |
| Conjunction fallacy | - tendency to judge prob of two events occurring togeth as more likely than lieklihood of one of them happening (linda problem, tver + kahn 1983) |
| Causality heuristic | turpin et al 2020 - base rate neglect dep on whthr task encourages ppl to use stereotypical info |
| Availability heuristic | - judge events as more likely/frequently occurring the easier they can be retrieved from LTM - sampling events from direct exp, heavy media coverage, strong feelings twrd event - kahn + tvers 1973 = more likely start w k or k as third letter (70%) |
| Fast-and-frugal heuristics | - gigerenzer - heuristics adaptive, help overcome cog limits (bounded rash) - many cases > correct responses - adaptive toolbox = TTB, recognition heuristic |
| Take-the-best heuristic | - select best option, ignore others 3 comps 1.search rule: search cues in ord of validit 2. Stopping rule: stop when find cue distinctly discrim options 3. Decision rule: select option |
| Recognition heuristic | - best option btwn several = one you recognise, recognition status as basis to make judgement |
| Prospect theory | kahneman +tversky 1. ppl start at ref point b4 make decision 2. ppl more sens to losses than gains > loss aversion - framing effect, sunk cost effect |
| Framing effect | situational variables (wording of prob) can affect decision making, even if irrelevant (20% fat vs 80% fat free) |
| Sunk-cost effect | continue w course of action even tho suboptimal or unsuccessful because resources been invested |
| base rate | overall prob of event in a pop, eg someone selected at random is a n engineer |
| lawyer vs engineer | -30 engineers and 70 lawyers - give descrip of jack, no interest in politic, freetime on hobbies like home carpentry, sailing, maths puzzles - what is prob jack is one of 30 engineers out of 100 |
| linda problem | - linda = single, outspoken, majored in phil, concerned w issues of discrim + social justice, partip in anti nucler demon - which of two is more probable = linda is bank teller, linda is bank teller and is active in feminist mvmnt |
| conjunction fallacy explanation | original - results from increased perceived prov of one of conjuncts - judged prob contemp - depends on content of added conjunct and whether confirms one's hyp - confirmation - depends on content of decrip confirming hyp |
| turpin et al 2020 conditions (causality heurstic) | no instructions = make decision abt occ ppl hold causal environ = gov assigns occ by giving personality test non-causal environ = gov gives occ randomly |
| turpin et al 2020 results (causality heuristic) | - respond according to base rate in congruent trials (info congurent w base rate) - base rate info in favour of stereotype - incongruent = respond in line w base rate in non causal environ |
| recognition heuristic support | goldstein + gigerenzer 2002 - partips shown pairs of cities, decide which one bigger 90% = selected city recognised as larger and were right |
| recognition heuristic contradicting evidence | - less liekly used when more info avail (recognised city not likely chosen when known city = no int airport) - ID in intelligence predict when used - ppl cons why recognise, dont just stop and choose - search mechanism more nuanced than 3 rules sugge |
Created by:
melissa.sjolin