Term
|
Definition
| Studied the Depth Of Processing! People were presented with words and then were asked 3 different questions about the words, whether the word was printed in capital letters, they asked to name a word it rhymed with, or to fill in the blank using a word they had. They then were asked to recall the words they were tested on. The people who filled in the blank remembered the most, then the rhyme, then the capital letters. This proved depth of processing, pr that the deeper a process we use to encode something the better memory we have of it. |
|
|
Term
| Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) |
|
Definition
| Glanzer and Cunitz did a serial position curve experiment that eliminated the recency effect and therefore the ability for people during the recall to use their short term memory as efficiently. What happened was people were given a list of words and asked to recall them. It was found that people were able to remember the words in the beginning of the experiment fairly well, because people had more time to store it in their LTM (Primacy effect). It was also found that people remembered words at the end of a list, because it remained in their STM (recency effect). Glanzer tested this recency effect by having some people given the list of words, and then were asked to wait 30 seconds, and then recall the words they were presented. It showed that the people that were in the delay group showed a significant drop off in their results at the end of the experiment, proving the recency effect! This was an altercation to the serial position curve |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Performed the first serial position curve test! What happened was people were given a list of words and asked to recall them. It was found that people were able to remember the words in the beginning of the experiment fairly well, because people had more time to store it in their LTM (Primacy effect). It was also found that people remembered words at the end of a list, because it remained in their STM (recency effect). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Rundus did an altercation of the serial position curve. What he did is after each word was presented during the list, the participant was given 5 seconds to rehearse (say out loud) the word. This showed that words presented in the earlier part of the list were rehearsed more, and they were more likely to be remembered. This supported the primacy effect! |
|
|
Term
| Sperling Whole Report Experiment (1960) |
|
Definition
-George Sterling tested how much information people take in with briefly presented stimuli
-Showed people a cluster of letters for 50 milliseconds, and people had to share how many of the letters they remembered using the whole report method
-On average people reported 4/12 letters correct |
|
|
Term
| Sperling Partial Report Experiment (1960) |
|
Definition
When Sperling has people try to report all of the letters they saw, they only reported 4/12. So instead what he would do was he'd show them the word list, and then he would play different tones to represent the different rows he wanted to show them, either immediately after or a delay. (EX: High tone = First row). The people with the immediate tone cue got 3.3/4 correct! the people with a delayed cue got worse the longer the delay was.
Sperling's Results Suggest
Duration of Iconic Memory is very short (0.5-2.0s)
The Capacity of iconic memory is large is you access it quickly enough |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| People were asked on a computer program to find a green circle in an array on a computer program and state whether it was there or not. The circle was either presented with blue circles and squares, or blue and green squares, or both. When the target green circle was the only green object or only circle, this was called the feature search (as you could just look for one of the features). When the target was not the only circle or green object, it was called the conjunction search. The results showed that in the feature searches, when the target was the only green or only circle, the number of distractors had no effect on the result, with saying it was there taking a little bit shorter than it was not there (present RT < Absent RT). However in the conjunction search, the reaction time did increase with the number of trials. In this case as well, saying the object was there (present) took less time than it was not there (absent). This proved the feature integration theory which stated that when we perceive just an objects features is the pre attentive stage, and then as time goes one our focus gets shifted to the post attentive stage which focuses on combining the features. The feature search only required us to look for specific features, and therefore took less time than the conjunction search, which required post attentive perception. |
|
|
Term
| Brown-Peterson (1959)COGLAB (AKA Peterson-Peterson) |
|
Definition
People were given three letters and then a number and were asked to count down from that number by 3s. The people were then asked to recall the 3 letters, at different times. Some were asked after 2 seconds, some were asked after 18 seconds of counting down by 3s. People who were asked 3 seconds after could remember 80% of the time, people who were asked 18 seconds later could only remember 12% of the time.
-After the first trial, people remembered a good amount, even after 18 seconds
-After many trials, people after 18 seconds could only remember 12%! This showed Proactive interference, or that new information interferes with previously learned info, because people performed better after 1 trial than many. The prescence of doing the trials over and over cause more and more interference, and greater effects for the delay after testing |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The principle that states that we encode information along with its context!
-The effectiveness of our ability to retrieve and use our memories depends directly on the match between the retrieval cues (what brings it out) and the information stored.
-So, if you study in one area, you will test best in that area, because the information you remember will be encoded along with the place you studied it! |
|
|
Term
| Thompson and Tulving Encoding Specificity COGLAB Experiment (1970) |
|
Definition
Participants were either cued with with no cue, cue A (hand), or cue B (tree) during studying, during being tested, or both. They were then tested to remember words. When there was no test cue people remembered about 25% of their words. When there was a cue at the test but not during the study, people remembered 50% of their words, just based off of their semantic word knowledge. The people who got the study cue but no test cue only remembered 25%, same as the normal people. When people got cue A for study and cue B for test, it was the same as getting just cue B at the test, and people remembered 50% of the words. The recall was at the highest when the studier's cue matched the test cue, and they remebered 75% of the words.
LONG STORY SHORT: How you study words effects how you will remember those words |
|
|
Term
| Deese (1959) and McDermott (1995) False Memories Experiment COGLAB |
|
Definition
Participants were asked to study a list of words that had to do with a particular category. They then were tested by given 6 words and asked which ones were on the list. Some were actually on the list, some were not on the list but fit the category, and some did not fit the category at all. It was found that people would put other words that fit the category as being on the list!
EX: given words like bed, rest, awake, tired, dream, etc. And then people would be tested to see if the word sleep was on the list, even though it was not. Many people put that sleep was on this list!
-This showed that constructive processes in our memory have error, as false memories arise from the same processes that construct new memories |
|
|
Term
| Lexical Decision COGLAB experiment |
|
Definition
| Participants are asked to read words in pairs, some of which are words and some of which are not words. Their task was to as quickly as possible determine whether or not it was a word, testing someones reaction time. It was found that when words were associated with each other, it took them less time to report the 2nd word as it would with a non related word. This is due to spreading activation and priming! When we retrieve the first part of the associated word from our memory, it almost in a sense "clears the path" for another word when its from that category. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
we were presented with 2 prototypes of pictures of dots. We we were then presented with pictures that fit one of the categories based off of the prototype. Some of them were used over and over and were called "familiar exemplars." Some were considered very close to the prototype. What was found was that the reaction time for a prototype you were seeing the first time was faster than an exemplar "near" the prototype you had seen before. This proves prototypes are abstracted and used when we are learning. They are stored in our semantic memory and we use them to categorize, even as we are learning (AKA, if something was a very close variation of the prototype we hadnt seen before, it had less RT than something we had seen before, but was farther from the prototype, proving we use prototypes for retrieval in memory)
-Near exemplars of prototypes did better than far ones as well! this proved the typicality effect, or that the closer to a prototype something is the clearer it will be in memory and easier to retrieve |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| People were presented 6 letters, 2 at a time, one in each ear. They were then asked to report all of the letters that they heard either by the order that they heard them, or by ear. It was found that people performed better when they reported the results by ear! This is because when we go in order we have to switch our attention between ears takes time, which can be too long to maintain in our sensory memory. Whereas in the ear condition people were able to focus the words they heard in the right ear, then only switch their attention once to the left ear, taking up less time and causing them to remember more of the letters. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A renaissance philosopher who coined the phrase "I think, therefore I am."
-Acknowledged mind and body were different things |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The idea that mind and body are different things
-Also, the view that mental events are not physical events |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The idea that mental events play a casual role in our behavior
-However there is a gap between mental states and the environment |
|
|
Term
| Broadbent Early Selection Model |
|
Definition
The attention model proposed by Boradbent. Otherwise known as the bottleneck model, in this model we are exposed to the world through our sensory memory, however we filter out all other things other than what we are trying to pay attention to, known as the attended message. According to this theory, we only take in information and store it into memory when we are paying attention to it. This is why it is called the bottleneck theory, because very little can get into it without entering the bottle directly.
Stated it went from sensory, to filter, to detector, to STM |
|
|
Term
| Treisman Attentuation Selection Model |
|
Definition
| Treisman did the Broadbent Early selection model one step further by being able to incorporate more than one message to the filter. What happens is messages come into the minds attenuator, which characterizes messages based on physical characteristics, its language, and its meaning. This acts as a filter and tells the brain which message to pay attention to based on the three categories. Then the messages, both the attended and unattended, are sent to the dictionary unit and then activate short term memory in the brain. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Models that proposed that attention was based off of selective attention, or that a filter in our mind that regulates physical characteristics of a stimulus is how we pay attention to things.
AKA it states that we pay attention and select to take in things based off the physical characteristics of a stimulus.
EARLY = Filter based on physical characteristics |
|
|
Term
| MacKay Late Selection Study (1973) |
|
Definition
MacKay had people listen to the sentence "They were throwing stones at the bank." in one ear. in the other ear, people would hear either the word "river" or the word "money", as they both associate with the respective definitions of the word "bank." It was found that the unattended message, or the word in the other ear, was effecting how people interpreted the sentence, even if they were not paying attention to it! This showed how we are unable to completely filter out unattended messages, but also proved late selection attention models! This stated that we usually filter our messages based on the meaning of a word, then decide which message to process.
AKA when being presented with stimuli, late selection theorist believe the filter focuses on the meaning of words, early focuses on physical characteristics
LATE = Filter out by meaning |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The process of going from the input to sensory memory, to short term memory, and when it is rehearsed enough it goes into long term memory. Has clear distinction between long term and short term memory |
|
|
Term
| Levels of Processing Theory |
|
Definition
The idea memory depends on how information is encoded, with "deeper" processing, or processing with a lot of attention to the stimuli's meaning, resulting in better encoding. While Shallow processing, which pays little attention to meaning, leads to lesser encoding.
This is associated with Craik and Tulving's experiment |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The idea that when being tested we remember things that come at the end of the test. This is because at the end of the list, there is still time while those items remain in our STM, causing us to still remember them. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The idea that when being tested on a word list, we are more likely to remember words at the beginning of the list. This is because over time, we have more and more time to rehearse the terms that came at the beginning of the list. The more time we have to rehearse the more likely the terms will get stored into our LTM. |
|
|
Term
| Feature Integration Theory |
|
Definition
| The idea that when we are perceiving things, our ability to pay attention to them relies on what is required to store the information. There are two stages to this theory, the Preattentive stage and the Postattentive stage. In the preattentive, people focus on physical features of a stimuli to capture their attention. Once the features are establisthed, the physical features of the object are combined and analyzed in the postattentive stage. Once those features are combined we determine what the object is and perceive it. This was proven in the videospatial search COGLAB |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| When the presence of new information hinders the ability to retrieve our memories. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| When the presence of Previous information hinders our ability to form new memoriesThis was proven in the Brown-Petersen Task, when the amount of time distracted and# of trials correlated with the % recall. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the most "typical" member of a category. What people mentally compare something too |
|
|
Term
| Prototype model of categorization |
|
Definition
| Where membership into a mental category is determined by comparing the object to a prototype that represents the category |
|
|
Term
| Interactive Activation Model |
|
Definition
A model for perception that is the most advance. It involves both bottom up (going from features of a letter to words) and top down (going from words to individual letters) when perceiving something. Therefore, both of these processes occur at the same time, and it does not occur in stages like the hierarchical model. When pairing the features together, there is no discrete "right or wrong" answer, rather graded decisions on what is the best perception of a given stimulus field.
EX: When seeing the "THE" Or the "CAT" picture when the A or H could be either or, the letters around it dictate what letter we perceive it as (Top down processing). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| In the C+Q model, it is the idea that activity spreads out along any link that is connected to an activated node. For example, when the property for the bird node is has feathers, that means all nodes under the bird node must have feathers. This is proven by the Lexical Decisions COGLAB |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Creating computer models for representing concepts and their properties based on characteristics of the brain
-Comparing the brain to a computer |
|
|
Term
| Connectionist network of the brain |
|
Definition
| A network of units that connect input units, to hidden units, to output units. Stimuli from the outside word activates the input units, which send signals to the hidden ones, which send signals to the output ones. |
|
|
Term
| Rodgers and McCelland Connectionist Model (Semantic Memory Model) |
|
Definition
They produced the "big" model. It is where activation of a concept unit and a relation unit creates activity.
AKA the input units are the things we see (input), which depending on what it is establishes different connection weights, which then determine the different properties that concept (what we perceive possesses. EX: Canary, to can, to grown/move/sing/fly |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The connectionist model is based on the neural networks of the brain. It believes that the units behave like the neurons, the links are the axons, and the connection weight is the firing rate. This shows that connectionist models follow the idea of distributed representation, whereas things like the Collins and Quillian model follow more the grandmorther cell approach.
-There are also excitatory and inhibitory connections (thinking something IS or IS NOT)
-learning changes the connection strength over time, just like how learning in neurons changes the structure |
|
|
Term
| Collins and Quillian Hierarchical Model |
|
Definition
| Collins and Quillian created a network model of human memory. It stemmed from the most specific things at the bottom to the most general things at the top. It consisted of nodes, which were each category, and the links, which connect the categories together. Properties are the features of each node, or category. It experienced cognitive economy because nothing could be above a node on the hierarchy without it experiencing it. |
|
|
Term
| Problems with Collins and Quillian Hierarchy Model |
|
Definition
1. it is a hierarchy!
-According to this model, it should take longer with each category up the tree. However, that is not always the case. Researchers found the reaction time of asking true or false to "a pig is a mammal" was slower than the sentence "a pig is an animal" even though animal is higher on the hierarchy!
2. Could not explain the effects of the prototype modal (how canaries were more viewed as birds than ostriches, that type of thing) |
|
|
Term
| Baddeley Dual Task Experiment (1974) |
|
Definition
People were asked keep some numbers in their head, while reading a passage. People were able to do it! the less they had to remember, the faster they read and less error they made, but even at the max remembrance load their memory was still good
-Showed the Modal Model to be false, as people could do two STM activities (remembering the numbers and the passage) at once! |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A Limited capacity system for temporary storage and manipulation of information for complex tasks such as comprehension, learning, and reasoning. It is another word for Short term memory, but in includes active processing as well as storage |
|
|
Term
| Baddeley's Working Memory Model |
|
Definition
| The idea that short term memory, working memory, consists of 3 factors, the Phonological Loop, the VisuoSpatial Sketch Pad, and the Central Executive |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The part of the Baddeley Working Memory Model that is responsible for auditory and verbal information. It has the phonological store and the articulatory rehearsal process, which store and rehearse the auditory and verbal information.
-It is the STM in Modal Model |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The part of the Baddeley Working memory model that focuses on visual and spatial information. To rehearse this information, we think of pictures of things and use imagery |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The part of the Working Memory model where major working memory occurs. It pulls information from Long Term Memory, and coordinates that with the activity in the phonological loop and visuospatial sketch pad by focusing on specific parts of a task, and shifting out attention amongst tasks. |
|
|
Term
| Constructivism on Perception |
|
Definition
| The idea that in perception we "build up" what we see view. It is that we first see the distal stimulus, or the literal thing that we are perceiving. Next is the distal stimulus, or the initial encoding by our receptors (eyes, nose, etc). Next is the percent, or what we end up thinking when we see the stimulus. The process distal to proximal to percept is the constructivism in perception |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The idea that we have representations for everything in order to determine what we perceive. We see a distal stimulus whose percept becomes an intensity array. These arrays are matched with the "templates" in our LTM, and when there is a match it means we perceive something.
The problem with this is that template models don't tolerate bad matches. For example, we would need a template for each different font of the letter T |
|
|
Term
| Hierarchical Model of Perception |
|
Definition
| The idea that we perceive things as solely bottom up, or in step by steps like that of a hierarchy. For example, in the hierarchical model for a word perceiving it would go from feature to letter to word. However, this method ignores the context of the word and how we use that words definition for perception |
|
|
Term
| Holistic Model of Perception |
|
Definition
| The idea that we have detectors in our long term memory that respond when we perceive wholes of things (for example, when we see words, not letters or features of those letters). Therefore, we observe features of things and find patterns that make up words, but we need the meaning of something (the whole) in order to perceive it. The problem with this is that it ignores bottom up processing, or the idea of taking parts and building them into a whole |
|
|
Term
| Distributed Representation |
|
Definition
| The idea that refuted the grandmother cell hypothesis. The idea of distributed representation is that every neuron plays some part in our brain activity, but each one fires at a different rate. Some fire alot to certain stimulus, a little to others. It states that in neural function it is the pattern of firing in a neuron that really matters. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The idea that over time, the strength of our memories increases (hardens). It is a product of Long Term memory originally relying on the hipoocampus but over time memories consolidated with the brain cortex. Meaning over the process of consolidation, less of the hippocampus is needed for memory |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The idea that each neuron responds to 1 stimulus we see in the world |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| When it is observable how one part of the brain effects another part of the brain. It was proven in the Underlider and Mishkin monkey experiment |
|
|
Term
| Underleider and Mishkin Monkey Experiment |
|
Definition
| These guys had monkeys perform 2 different tasks while removing parts of their brain. The first task was the "landmark recognition" task where a monkey was presented with 2 objects, one with food underneath it. The monkeys would be cued as to which object held the food. Monkeys without parietal lobes had trouble with this, proving parietal lobes as the where pathway. The second task was the object discrimination task, where a monkey was presented with 2 shapes. If the monkey determined the correct shape, it got food as a reward. Monkeys with no temporal lobes had trouble with this, making the temporal lobe the "what" pathway. Because there was a "what" impairment and a "where" impairment, it showed 2 types of dissociation, or a "double dissociation" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The loss of memory for events that happened in the past |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The loss of the ability to create new memories. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The loss of the ability to recognize objects, persons, sounds, shapes, or smells, while the specific sense is not defective and there is no memory loss. AKA losing cogntitive function in specific areas. This is usually caused by brain damage or illness |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Patients are unable to distinguish visual shapes and so have trouble recognizing, copying, or discriminating between different visual stimuli. Unlike patients suffering from associative agnosia, those with apperceptive agnosia are unable to copy images |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Patients can describe visual scenes and classes of objects but still fail to recognize them. They may, for example, know that a fork is something you eat with but may mistake it for a spoon. Patients suffering from associative agnosia are still able to reproduce an image through copying. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Consistent co-occurence of a set of features
-with features of things constantly being used and re-used, we in our minds determine which ones are important or not |
|
|
Term
| The total Time Hypothesis |
|
Definition
| The likelihood of something being stored in LTM is related to how long it is in STM |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The idea that each brain function can be associated and specialized with some part of the brain. EX: Brocas area, wernickes area |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Unconscious memory, that we are not aware of |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Conscious Memory, that we are aware of
-It consists of episodic and semantic memory |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A part of explicit memory in long term memory, it is our stored knowledge of personal experience |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A Part of Explicit Memory in long term memory, it is stored knowledge and memory for facts. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A type of Implicit Memory. It is when we have a change in a response to a stimulus after a previous presentation of the same stimulus. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| It is a type of implicit memory, The memory for doing things that require action, AKA skill memory. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| It is a type of implicit memory. It is when someone pairs a neutral stimulus with a non-neutral response. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| When someone processes something mentally unintentionally and without using all of their cognitive resources ("brain power"). it is literally doing something automatically in your head |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| When someone has to pay close attention at all times to do something. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| When we perceive something in hierarchical order. Or going from "the features to the word" it is literally going from the bottom of something and making up to parts to make the whole. It usually involves physical characteristics as compared to the meaning of things |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| It is when instead of going from the features of something and making up the whole, you go from the whole and work towards the features when perceiving something. For example when we see the word "CAT" or the word "THE" in the font where the A and H look the same, the letters around it make us determine the word, and then specific letter as to what it is. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A region or space on the neuron that will change or alter shape after the firing of that neuron. It is where on the body physical stimuli influence their neurons. For example, a receptive field of a visual neuron is the area on the retina that influences the activity of that neuron |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The disorder where people are unable to recognize faces |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Process that initially stores the information into our LTM |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Period between learning and testing. Getting the information stored into your brain |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The process of retrieving our stored memory and using it |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| He defined where Broca's Area is. Brocas area is the part of the brain associated with speech production. People with broca's aphasia understand langue, but have a hard time producing it |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Made Wernickes area. That is the part of the brain associated with speech comprehension. People with Wernickes aphasia have no trouble producing speech (although it rarely makes sense) but have a hard time understanding it |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
in 1904, Watson felt that analytic introspection, or the idea of measuring psychological values by asking people about them, was not a good enough measure in psychology. As a result, he created behaviorism! Or the idea that we can measure our mental processes from our behavior (actions).
He performed the little albert experiment, which proved classical conditioning when the little boy was classically conditioned to fear rats. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| She was the one who created the attentuator model for perception (being able to filter out and process 2 or more things at once, with one of them being more processed than the other (attended vs unattended message). She also coined the feature integration theory by creating the visual search coglab, which stated that our attention is quicker when we do not require going into the post attentive stage of perception. Because according to the Feature attention theory, perception goes in stages, when the conjunction condition was unused the post attentive step was skipped. |
|
|
Term
| Loftus and Pickerall False Childhood Memories Experiment (1995) |
|
Definition
| Researchers went to kids families and had them tell them stories about events their family did. Then the researcher went to the child, and restated some of these stories, and then asked if the child remembered it. Then, the researchers made up a story, and asked if the child remembered the fake one. The results showed that 30% of the fake memories were recalled as true, even up to 2 weeks later. This shows that memories can be implanted into our brains, as long as they are believable. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| People were shown a picture of a red datsun stopped at a stop sign. They then were asked questions about the picture. Some of them got questions about what happened at the stop sign, and others got questions about what happened at the YIELD sign. Participants were then shown the slides again. People who received questions about the yield sign were more likely to report they saw a yield sign in the slides. This shows the misinformation effect, or the fact that by asking about the yield sign it caused people to think they saw one. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| She was a psychologist that influenced memory. Her experiments mostly targeted false memories. Most notably were the Red datsun study and the False Childhood memory study. in the false childhood memory study, she would tell kids back stories that happened in their lives. After a couple of true stories, she would tell them a fake one, and many of them reported remembering it, even though it never happened. This proved false memories can be implanted in people. The red datsun study showed the misinformation effect, or that by asking people leading questions it can lead to flase memories. People were shown a picture of a red datsun at a stop sign. They then were questioned about it, but some got questioned about a red datusun at a yield sign. People who received questions about the yield sign were more likely to report it being there, showing that misinformation (the yield question) can lead to false memories |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Chomsky did a lot for language, but for psychology his most notable feat was him criticizing a book written by BF skinner. Skinner wrote a book verbal behavior which talked about the importance of operant conditioning and behaviorism. However chomsky argued that operant condition, or getting rewards, was not what drove people. He used how children say "I hate you mom" as an example. A child will not get rewarded for that behavior, why does it occur? This propelled the start of the cognitive revolution and ended behaviorism as the dominant view of psychology. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A design principle of perception that states that different parts of the brain specialize in different tasks. This can be compared memory, which also has different parts of the brain specialize in different actions, such as brocas area or wernickes area. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| They are one of the perception design principles. heuristics are simple, efficient rules, learned or hard-coded by evolutionary processes, that have been proposed to explain how people make decisions, come to judgments, and solve problems. In perception the gestalt laws, the laws that dictate how we see things, are heuristics. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| This is one of the perception design principles. This states that what we "see", or the possibilites of what we can see, has limitations. For example in a cross word puzzle, solution for that puzzle must fit both words (constraints) to fit the puzzle. A hard constrain is a constraint law with 1 solution |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| It is a design principle for perception. it states We "got get" information, we don't just sit there and take it. In other words, by using things such as eye movements, we can look around and search for the info we are looking to perceive. This can also be applied to memory, as we actively choose which memories to semantically connect to. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A design principle for perception. It states Having a lot of memory vs. having a little bit of memory. The more memory we have, typically the more efficient we are. EX: Seeing an apple for the second time would take longer to perceive than seeing an apple for the 100th time.
Also, the diversity of memory is important. The phrase "Oh say can you see" causes people to bring up memories of the song, learning the song, and possibly hearing the song like at a sporting event |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| It is a design principle for perception. it states that there is more to the world than what we literally "see." Or in other words, the way we are able to perceive something, remember something, etc, depends directly on how well we see our environment. Having a memory of a road driving in the fog wont be as clear as having a memory of driving on a clear sunny day. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| It is a design principle for perception. It states that we only do as much as we have to when using our brains. Meaning we only use the parts of the brain for perception when perceiving something, for the least amount of time we need. It essentially teaches our brains to use rules of thumbs. EX: When someone asks whats 11 times 21, people can respond with the actual answer, but more likely than not they quickly respond with something like "a little over 200" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Specialization, Heuristics, Constraint Satisfaction, Active Processing, Rich Memory, Rich Environment, Impoverish Processing |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Things that are present in every language. They are
-arbitrariness
-displacement
-productivity |
|
|
Term
| Language Competence Theory |
|
Definition
It is literally the theory of language itself.
-It involves the structure of Language, or linguistics
COMPETENCE = linguistics |
|
|
Term
| Language Performance Theory |
|
Definition
The theory of how we use language (how we use our language competence)
-It involves the mental processes in using language, or psychology
Performance = Psychology theory |
|
|
Term
| Types of Performance Theories |
|
Definition
-Comprehension
-Production
-Acquisition |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
It is a performance theory of language. It is how people understand written and spoken language. It involves recognizing words (phonology), interpreting structure (syntax) and meaning of sentences (semantics), and understanding why that sentence was said (pragmatics).
Essentially is the psychological theory on how we understand language, in all stages from phonological to pragmatic
Comprehension = UNDERSTAND language |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
It is a performance theory on language. It studies how we USE the language, which involves deciding what to say, chooisng the appropriate words (mentally), and then physically speaking.
Picking what to say and saying it
Production = USING language |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
This is a performance theory of language (theory studied by psychologists). It is how people learn (or acquire) language. It involves the processes of learning your first language as a child, and your second language later in life
ACQUISITION = Learning langauge |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The shortest segment of speech that if changed, changes the meaning of a word. (AKA the letters of a word)
-It is the smallest level of knowledge of language
EX: In the words cats, there are 4 phonemes, c a t and s |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The smallest unit in a language that has definable meaning or grammatical function.
In the word cats there are 2 morphemes, "cat" and "s". |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The meaning of words and sentences |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the specific rules that bound words and sentences together |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The "social rules" of language. |
|
|
Term
| Ambiguity in language occurs at _____ stage |
|
Definition
| It occurs at every stage! From Perceptual, to lexical, to syntatic, to semantic/pragmatic |
|
|
Term
| Perceptual Ambiguity of language |
|
Definition
| An example of this would be when we see the word CAT or the word THE and whether or not the middle letter is an A or an H depends on the context. How we perceive language varies on many things. |
|
|
Term
| Lexical Ambiguity of Language |
|
Definition
It is when a word can mean more than one thing and it causes multiple meanings on a sentence.
EX: Duck! |
|
|
Term
| Syntactic Ambiguity of Language |
|
Definition
How applying the same sentence structure works in come sentences but not other sentences. EX: they are cooking apples (works)
They are flying fish (does not work) |
|
|
Term
| Semantic/ Pragmatic Ambiguity of Language |
|
Definition
There can be more than one intention to a sentence depending on the context.
EX: Do you know what time it is?
The correct answer is "yes" but most people respond by telling them the time |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| We as people hear sound energy as consistent flow. Because of this, we must mentally break down where the ending of one word is and the beginning of the next one is. This is done using knowledge of context, grammar, syntax, and semantics |
|
|
Term
| The problem of Invariance |
|
Definition
It is the fact that sometimes, we can have the same phoneme but it makes a different sound "du vs. de"
OR we can have different phonemes, but very similar sounds "dut vs gut." This leads to ambiguity in speech perception and problems during speech segmentation, otherwise known as the problem of invariance |
|
|
Term
| Pollack and Pickett (1964) |
|
Definition
| They ran an experiment where they recorded peoples conversations. Then, they had them played back to them, and people were asked to identify words. Some people were given just the recording of the word, some people got the recording of the sentence. It showed that people who heard only the word got it right only 50% of the time, but people who got the entire sentence got it right 95% of the time. This shows how contextual information can remove phonological ambiguity. Or in other words, because sounds can sound the same, when hearing a word in isolation it can sound like a bunch of different words. But when we hear that word used in a sentence, the information about the sentence makes what the word actually is more clear. |
|
|
Term
| Warren (1970) and Samuel (1990) Phonemic Restoration Effect |
|
Definition
People were listen to someone say the word legislatures. However, instead of the word, they heard "legi#latures" with a cough noise where the number sign was. They then were asked when they heard the cough. Most people identified that they heard the cough AFTER the word, and that they did not notice the s was missing. This is because the phoneme was filled in, or "restored" due to the contextual information surrounding it. When people hear a legi-cough-lature, people are going to naturally assume that the word they are saying is legislature, and create that word in their minds.
*This can work for word context as well as sentence context.
EX: There was time to #ave VS
There was time to #ave goodbye
-People are more likely to use "w" and make wave in the 2nd instance because it makes sense in the context of the sentence |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| People had to identify strings of sentences while words were masked by white noise. There were 3 types of sentences presented: Grammatical (ones that made semantic and syntactic sense), Anomalous (Ones that were "possible" syntactically but didn't make semantic sense) of Ungrammatical (strings of words that didnt make sense nor were a sentence). It was found that people identified more words when they had both semantic and syntactic reasoning, then ones with just syntactic reasoning, then words with no reasoning. This showed the role of semantics (meaning) and top down processing on perceiving sentences and language. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| People were presented with 3 different conditions on a screen. They were either shown a word such a fork, a single letter such as k, or a non-word such as rfok. They were shown these 3 types of stimuli for a bout a second, and then they were asked to report what letter they saw. It was noted that identifying the letter, in this case K, was more quickly and accurately predicted when it was preceded around a WORD, then by itself, then a non word. This proves the word superiority effect, which states that letters are easier to recognize when used in a word rather when they are alone. Proves that context matters when perceiving words |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| It is the tendency that finding letters are easier to recognize when they are contained in a word rather than when they appear alone of in a non word. This is because context of a word matters when perceiving it |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A psychologist named Rayner had people read two list of words. During the list there were some non-words and some real words. Every time they read a real word they were to identify it by pressing a button. The first list contained words with low frequency (not very common words), such as voluble or oriole. While the second list of words contained very high frequency words (common words) such as "busy" or "history." It was found that peoples reaction times for identifying words was much quicker during the high frequency list compared to the low frequency list. This proved the word frequency effect, or that we respond to high frequency words more rapidly than low frequency ones, because the more often we use a specific word the easier it is to access in our memory |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| We respond more rapidly to high frequency words, such as "home," than low frequency words, like "hike." Home |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Using a word related to a desired word into to prime someone. EX: By saying the word ant before the word bug, people are primed to think you are saying the insect version of the word bug, and not the spying microphone device |
|
|
Term
| Behaviorist View of Language |
|
Definition
Based off the book written by BF Skinner, behaviorists beleived that language was literally verbal behavior, and therefore people could study its tendencies to decipher the mental constructs of language.
-It was believed that language was learned by operant conditioning.
-Also believed that sentences were response chains, and that each word was a stimulus that triggered the next! |
|
|
Term
| Does Language have sequential structure? (response chains) |
|
Definition
NO! it does not! If it did sentences would have to have agreements next to eachother in all sentences
EX: the boy likes the cake
the boy on the team likes the cake.
Even though they are portraying the same thing, the agreement in the sentence is distanced from on another, proving it is not a sequential (one by one) structure |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The idea that a sentence is sequentially built, that each word someone pronounces is a stimulus, with each next word its response to that stimulus |
|
|
Term
| Why Chomsky dispatched Verbal Behavior |
|
Definition
1. Because operant conditioning does not explain language acquisition (why do we say sentences that dont give us rewards?)
2. Sentence structures are not sequential (response chains)
-We can have sentences that built off each other from previous words or even other sentences. Each word is not a stimulus build up of the next |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The grouping of words into phrases that make up our sentences |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
When the initial words of a sentence can lead to more than one meaning, and the rest of the sentence is required to give the correct context and eliminate that ambiguity.
EX: Amanda believe the senator...
-during his speech OR
-was lying to the commitee
This first part of the sentence could mean Amanda believe the senator was lying or telling the truth, leading to temporary ambiguity. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Due to temporary ambiguity and peoples tendency to pick a meaning of a sentence before it is finished, garden pathway sentences can occur. This is when we are reading a sentence and before it is done, or mind goes down a pathway that turns out to be wrong. |
|
|
Term
| Syntax-First Approach to Parsing |
|
Definition
| The idea that formulating words together to create phrases (parses) is done by the grammatical structure of the sentence, followed by semantics to "fix the parse." In other words, it believes we read words one by one, and then when the sentence or phrase is finished we decide which grouping makes the most sense semantically |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The principle of late closure exists during syntax first approach of parsing. It believes that when someone is reading a sentence (one by one), and more than one parse is possible, the person assumes this word is part of the current phrase and will keep it in there as long as semantically possible.
EX: becuase he always jogs a mile john is in good shape vs because he always jogs a mile seems like a short distance to him
(we try to keep mile as part of the phrase with john as long as we can) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The idea of parsing that uses the syntax first approach. It believes that we read sentences in module order, going simply with bottom-up processing in order to perceive parses and sentences. The only time top down is used is when we are correcting the parses and sentences (just like the syntax first approach)
-It basically says each module of the brain with language acts independently with eachother, and one is only used after the next one is finished. |
|
|
Term
| Interaction approach to parsing |
|
Definition
| States that syntactic and semantic information are taken in at the same time as we read the sentence, and the corrections of the sentence occur as we read the sentence. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Sentences that have the same structure but different words can influence the parses they create. For example the sentence "the spy saw the man with the binoculars" could mean the spy used them to see the man, or the man saw the man and the man had the binoculars. However, if the sentenced is changed to "the bird saw the man with the binoculars" there is only one meaning of the sentence, that the bird saw the man holding the binoculars, because birds cannot use binoculars. This supports the interaction approach to parsing, because our semantic knowledge about birds eliminated the second parse when we saw the word, not after the sentence was read |
|
|
Term
| Tanenhaus Apple condition Study |
|
Definition
| People we shown an apple on a towel, another towel, and a box. They then were given the instructions "put the apple on the towel in the box." Participants eye movements were tracked, and Initially, the sentence put the apple on the towel infers they want someone to put the apple on the other towel and their eyes moved that way. but after hearing the last part (in the box), the correct meaning emerges, and people moved their eyes back to the apple and then the box. Next a second apple was added on a napkin. They then were asked the same thing to "put the apple on the towel in the box" this time peoples eyes went from the apply on the napkin, to the apply on the towel, right to the box. In this case, on the towel refers right to the apple only, and not the other towel. The results provide support for both syntax first and interaction approach. In the one apple condition, it implies at first the apple be placed on the towel, and then the box, which would infer syntax first processing. However, because the sentence structure remained the same but the context changed, the two apple condition supports the interaction approach. |
|
|
Term
| Taraban and McClelland semantic context study (1988) |
|
Definition
People read 2 sets of sentences. One read "john saw the girl with the binoculars, VS john saw the girl with the freckles" and "I read the article in the bathtub VS I read the article in the magazine"
-Because these sentences all make semantic sense, according to Modularity the pairs should take the same amount of time to read. However, it was shown that the binoculars sentence was read faster than the freckles sentence and the magazine was read faster than the bathtub sentence. This showed evidence for the interaction approach, because the information about the sentence effect the initial parse, and therefore how long it took to read it |
|
|
Term
| How Modularity and Interactive Approaches to parsing differ |
|
Definition
| It is about WHEN the semantic knowledge is used, either as we read the sentence or at the end to fix error |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| What a word/ phrase is about. The definition of a word based off its context |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Two words or phrases that refer to the same thing
EX: I bought a new BOOK. IT was written by Donald Westlake.
It and BOOK cohere with eachother (refer to the same thing) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A reference/conclusion implied by the speaker, but not explicitly stated
EX: Someone says "Donald Westlake wrote the book I bought" Its also referring to (Donald Westlake bought the book I am talking about right now)
Speakers IMPLY things |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The process by which listeners determine referents and derive conclusions based off what people say. They essentially figure out what the speaker is implying.
Listeners INFER things |
|
|
Term
Speakers ______
Listeners _______ |
|
Definition
Speakers IMPLY
Listeners INFER |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Inferences that connect and object or person in one sentence to an object or person in another sentence.
EX: Riffifi, the famous poodle, won the dog show. She has now was the last 3. Anaphoric inference occurs when we infer She at the second sentence is referring to Riffifi from the first one. (It is when we use pronouns to replace proper nouns, we infer which pronouns correspond to which proper noun). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Inferences about tools or methods used during the context of a sentence.
EX Shakespeare wrote hamlet while sitting at his desk. We make inferences that he wrote it with a Quil pen and at a wooden desk, because that is the context of what we know about Shakespeare. it is using you semantic knowledge to make an inference about the instruments used in a sentence |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Inferences we make where the events described in one sentence were caused by the events in a previous one
EX She took an aspirin. Her headache went away.
No one ever said specifically how her headache went away, we infer it was due to the aspirin |
|
|
Term
| Representative Speech Acts |
|
Definition
It is a direct speech act. It is When you express belief of something
EX "It will be cold tonight" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
It is a direct speech act. It is getting a listener to do something (or ordering)
EX "Pick up your toys" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
When you want to change state of affairs with someone
EX "You're fired" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Using speech to directly get something, such as representative (telling someone how you feel) or directive (ordering someone to do something) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Using speech in someway to indirectly get what you want/ your point across |
|
|
Term
| Indirect Request Speech Act |
|
Definition
| Asking someone "Do you know what time it is?" the real answer is yes, but they want you to tell them the time |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Saying something blatantly not true in order to portray the opposite
EX: "kids are stupid" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
"He grabbed the bull by the horns"
Not literally, but it means he took the task head on, indirectly saying it |
|
|
Term
| Understanding Indirect Speech |
|
Definition
| The literal meaning must be rejected, which requires pragmatic knowledge (knowing not to take people seriously) and shared knowledge (knowing when people are serious and when they are not) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The idea that in order to communicate, people must contribute to conversations with one another based off of 4 principles: Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner.
When people mutually cooperate with these 4 principles, through correct pragmatics conversation occurs |
|
|
Term
| Quantity Maxim of Cooperative Principle |
|
Definition
The idea that in a conversation you must not bring too much nor too little information when speaking to someone
EX dont tell someone you just met your steer address, but dont tell your best friend you live on earth when describing where you live |
|
|
Term
| Quality Maxim of Cooperative Principle |
|
Definition
| When communicating with someone, don't say what you believe to be false or say something that you cannot back up with evidence, as it does not lead to cooperative conversations (kills conversations) |
|
|
Term
| Relation Maxim of Cooperative Principle |
|
Definition
| When talking to someone, when you give them information it must be relevant to what you're talking about |
|
|
Term
| Manner Maxim of Cooperative Principle |
|
Definition
| When communicating with someone be clear, avoid ambiguity or having double meanings to what you can say |
|
|
Term
| Violating the ______ can be used to communicate non-literal meanings |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The process of drawing conclusions and how people come to conclusions based on the information presented to them |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Drawing logically certain conclusions from a set of premises.
-Drawing conclusions that have to be true
EX: Knowing that someone graduated from Arizona State. You are then told to graduate from there you must have atleast a C average. Therefore, using deductive reasoning, we conclude that someone had at least a C average
*Uses syllogisms to arrive at those conclusions |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Drawing a conclusion that is probably true, based off of evidence.
EX: Richard attended UCONN for 4 years and now is a vice president of a bank.
Inductive reasoning would say that he graduated from UCONN, even though it wasnt specifically stated |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Estimating the likelihood of the occurrences or outcomes |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Deductive arguments from conclusions of 2 premises
EX: All A are B
All B are C
Syllogism = All A are C! |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Premises and conclusions describe the relation between 2 categories, using the statements all, no, or some
Categorical = ALL, NO, or SOME |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A syllogism is valid when its conclusion follows logically from its two premises
*It is when a syllogism proves true due to logic |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
When a syllogism is true, it means it corresponds to the real world correctly.
EX: All poodles are animals
all animals are wild
Therefore, all poodles are wild
*this is a valid syllogism based off what we are given, but not true because not all poodles are animals |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
When a syllogism is both valid and true
(AKA works logically with the premises, and is true in real life) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A syllogism again with 2 premises and a conclusion. However, in conditional syllogism, the first premises must begin with "If....then...."
CONDITIONAL = If...then...
EX: If I lend Steve 20 Dollars, I wont get it back (P)
I lent Steve 20 Dollars (P)
Therefore, I wont get it back (C)
OVERALL REPRESENTED AS
IF P, Then Q |
|
|
Term
| Evans Belief Bias Effect Srudy |
|
Definition
| People were asked to decide whether or not a syllogism was valid given 2 premises and a conclusion. Some of the syllogisms were valid but not true (relate to real life), while some were true but the premises did not match the conclusion making them invalid. When people were asked about the validity of the syllogisms, it was found that not true syllogisms, but were valid, were decided to be viewed as invalid much more often than believable ones. In syllogisms that were supposed to be viewed as invalid, ones with believable conclusions were in fact rated to be valid much highly than ones that had not believable conclusions. This proved the belief bias effect, or that people based assumptions more often on their personal beliefs rather than logical validity |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The tendency that people will follow their personal beliefs about something over logical validity |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Having strong rationalism is the tendency to follow logical argument, while wear rationalism means not following logic |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
the first part of a conditional syllogism
Essentially the "If...." part
"If p" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The second term of a conditional syllogism
It is the "...then...." part
Q! |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
When the second premise in a syllogism matches the antecedant (first part) of the first premise
EX: If I study, then I'll get a good grade
I studied
therefore I'll get a good grade |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
When the second premises states something that denies the consequent of the first premise
EX: If I study, then I'll get a good grade
I Did not get a good grade
Therefore, I did not study
When saying Q does not occur, we must assume P did not occur either |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
When someone affirms the consequent in the 1st premise with the 2nd one, and incorrectly makes the conclusion that the syllogism is true
If p then q
Q, there P
Is incorrect! you cannot assume that P is the only way to get Q
EX: If I study for the test, I will get a good grade
I got a good grade,
Therefore, I studied (IS WRONG)
You couldve gotten a good grade without studying, but this is saying if you do study, you'll get a good grade
AKA stating P as a product of Q incorrectly |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
When p in the first premise is negated by the second premise, the conclusion incorrectly assumes the consequent (q) in the 1st premise is incorrect
EX If I study, I will get a good grade
I didnt study
Therefore I didnt get a good grade
This is a invalid syllogism because we cannot assume that p is the only way to derive q. We can assume that when p occurs, q occurs, and thats it |
|
|
Term
| Wason 4 card problem (abstract) |
|
Definition
Wason had people look at 4 cards, each one with E, then K, then 4, then 7. They were then presented with the conditional syllogism If the card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side. They were then asked to determine which cards had to be flipped over to solve the problem. Participants showed that E only got 33%, E and 4 got 46%, E and 7 got only 4%, and other was 17%. The answer however is E and 7! This is because when E is flipped over, the vowel, one must try to prove the consequent by finding an even number. 7 must be flipped over because this is not an even number, and therefore must show that the other side is not a vowel, (denying the consequent). If there is a vowel. this means the rule is wrong. This proved the falsification principle, which stated that in order to test a rule (syllogism), we must find the situations that would falsify that rule
(EX in conditional syllogism, this is affirming the antecedent and denying the consequent) |
|
|
Term
| Griggs 4 card problem with beer |
|
Definition
| Wason's 4 card problem inspired a lot of research. One way that it did was by Richard Griggs and his altercation of the problem. He had 4 cards which read beer, soda, 16 years old, and 24 years old. people were to determine whether or not something was violating the drinking age (21 years old today, 19 at the time of the experiment). Therefore, people had to flip the beer card to see who was drinking, and then the 16 year old card to see if they were drinking beer (falsifying the rule) Participants got this rule much better than the abstract 4 card rule of the Wason card study. This proves the concreteness effect, or that being able to relate to a problem makes realizing the falsification principle much greater |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The principle that states when solving a problem, it is easier when we can relate to that problem
EX The beer wason 4 card study vs the abstract (numbers) wason 4 card study |
|
|
Term
| Pragmatic Reasoning Schema |
|
Definition
| It is the idea that cause and effect relationships are part of the world and influence experiencing everyday life |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
It it a type of pragmatic reasoning schema (a real-life cause and effect relationship). It states that if a person satisfies condition A, they are allowed to carry out condition B
EX: If you are 21, then you get to drink beer |
|
|
Term
| Cheng Permission Schema 4 card study |
|
Definition
| This was another variation of the 4 card study. Initially, participants were to determine if both sides of the card had the correct diseases that matched. In the second part of the study, participants were asked to determine if given the diseases, they would be allowed to enter the country. In surprising results, it showed when people were asked to simply identify diseases, they got the task right 68% of the time. However, when the same cards were used to determine when they could come into the country, 91 percent of participants chose the correct cards. This proves that permission schemas do in fact determine our decisions. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| For people to cooperate, an argument must benefit both people (unless there is cheating) |
|
|
Term
| Cosmides hypothetical culture 4 card task |
|
Definition
| This was a variation of the 4 card task that tested to see if cheating (violation of the social exchange theory) and not permission schemas was the cause of people doing better on the logical task. This idea was to create an unfammiliar situation, because permission schemas rely on being familiar with the situation. People were told if someone ate the cassava root, they had to have a tatoo on their face (fake cultural situation). they were shown cards that said ate cassave root, ate nuts, had tattoo, no tattoo. Participants for the most part correctly identified the cassava root and the no tattoo card as the ones they had to identify, proving that logical tasks are aided by rules derived from natural selection (not cheating) and not necessarily permission schemas |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
the rule that states that the probability of 2 things occurring cannot exceed the individual probability of one of those things occuring.
EX: p(A and B) cannot exceed the p(A) or p(B) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The idea that previous occurrences can predict future ones.
"being due for a win"
EX: flipping a coin and getting 5 heads in a row, you have the same probability of getting another head as you do tails |
|
|
Term
| Tverysky and Kahneman Ignoring Base Rate Study (1974) |
|
Definition
| People were asked to read the story "We randomly pick one male from the US population. That male, wheres glasses, speaks quietly, and reads alot. Is this male a librarian or farmer?" People more often than not select librarian, however, according the probabilistic reasoning, the answer would be farmer, because there are less male librarians than there are male farmers. This shows how people can ignore the base rate, or ignore probabilities, where making probabilistic decisions, and will rely on other things such as stereotypes |
|
|
Term
| Systematic Errors of Probabilistic Reasoning |
|
Definition
-Gamblers Fallacy (believing a previous outcome effects the next)
-Ignoring Base Rate (Ignoring statistics and basing judgement off of other things (like stereotypes))
-Violations of Conjunction rule (p(A and B) is not greater than p(A) or p(b)) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Participants were asked to read the story. "Linda is a 31 year old, single, outspoken and very smart. She majored in Philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with isses of discrimination and social justice. Which is more probable? 1. Linda is a bank teller. 2. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement
The real answer is 1. linda is active in the feminist movement, because it violates the conjunction rule! People are more likely to follow the stereotype that shes a feminist and a bank teller. However, the probability of being just a bank teller will always be higher than being a feminist one, because not all bank tellers are feminists. This proves how people experience error by ignoring the conjunction rule |
|
|
Term
| Tversky and Kahnman Cause of Death Study |
|
Definition
People were asked to decide between pairs of causes of death and say which one was more likely to kill someone. The pairings including: asthma and tornadoes, appendicitis and pregnancy, etc. It was shown that people picked incorrectly a lot of the time, because the question was intended to "trick" the person. For example, asthma is a higher leading cause of death than tornadoes, but 58% of people picked tornadoes. Kahneman and Tversky proved that people act heuristically, or that we make assumptions and conclusions about things when making decisons
Follows the availability heuristic, which states that events that are more easily remembered are more likely to be thought as probably |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The idea that events that are more easily remembered are more likely to be judged as probable than events that are less easily remembered.
EX: People assume flying in a plane is less safe than driving. However, fatality rate is 500 times greater for driving than flying in a commercial airplane
availability heuristic! people think planes are less safe even though more people die in cars |
|
|
Term
| McKelvie Fame Judgement Experiment |
|
Definition
| McKelvie Presented people with 26 names. 12 of them were famous men (Ronal Reagan, Mick Jagger). 14 of them were nonfamous females. People were then asked if there were more males or females on the list. 77% of people said there were more males on the list! Even though there were more females. This proves the availability heuristic! Which states that events more easily remembered seem more probable than ones that don't. Even though there were more female names, people remembered more male ones because they were famous, and thus assumed more men were on the list |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| When a correlation between 2 events appears to exist, but in reality there is no correlation at all (being false about a correlation, usually resulting from the availability heuristic |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Relative proportion of different classes in the population (EX Farmers to librarians) |
|
|
Term
| Representativeness Heuristic |
|
Definition
| When people make estimates of the probability of an event based on how much it resembles another event. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| People were to read a statement, and then a second statement and say how likely that second statement was based on the first one. People were judged to see whether or not how "typical" an activity was related to their occupation, and whether or not asking them one or two things of probability mattered. It was found that when people were asked if things were by itself and not typical was the lowest, than together in conjunction with something but not typical, then highly typical of someone with that job and a single proclamation, then the highest being something typical and in conjunction with something else! |
|
|
