The
domain
of
suggestionality:
Communicative
and
other
influences
on
cognitive
illusions
Rüdiger
F.
Pohl
Psychology
III,
University
of
Mannheim
partially
based
on
Pohl,
R.
F.
(2004).
(Ed.).
Cognitive
illusions:
A
handbook
on
biases
and
fallacies
in
thinking,
judgement,
and
memory.
Hove,
UK:
Psychology
Press.
Neuchâtel
2010
1
Outline
My
research
vita
Cognitive
illusions
The
domain
of
suggestionality
Communicative
and
other
influences
Conclusions
Neuchâtel
2010
2
My
research
vita
Neuchâtel
2010
3
My
research
vita
•
•
•
First
5
years:
Psycholinguistics
–  memory
representations
of
…
•  verbs
of
possession
•  propositions/sentences
•  stories/story
grammars
All
the
time:
Cognitive
psychology
–  schema
theory
of
information
processing
–  memory
errors/cognitive
illusions
•  eyewitness‐misinformation
effect
•  hindsight
bias
–  traumatic
memories
–  autobiographical
memory
Last
5
years:
Decision
making
–  heuristics
Neuchâtel
2010
4
My
research
vita
•
Psycholinguistics:
Propositional
structure
and
phrase
structure
Neuchâtel
2010
5
My
research
vita
•
Psycholinguistics:
Story
grammar
Neuchâtel
2010
(Mandler
&
Johnson,
1977)
6
My
research
vita
•
Cognitive
psychology:
Looking
into
the
„black
box“
Neuchâtel
2010
7
My
research
vita
•
Cognitive
psychology:
Schema
theory
of
information
processing
Interpretation
Selektion
Abstraktion
Integration
Neuchâtel
2010
Rekonstruktion
Episodische
Gedächtnisspur
Vergessen
8
Cognitive
illusions
•
x
Neuchâtel
2010
(2004)
9
My
research
vita
•
Cognitive
psychology:
Autobiographical
memory
Erste Freundin
Essen
gehen
Beziehung mit X
Ehe mit Y
Tanzen
gehen
Telefonieren
Erstes Treffen in F
Telefonate
Essen
bei Luigi
Neuchâtel
2010
Urlaub
machen
Urlaub in
G
Tanzen im
Malibu
Streitigkeiten
Erster
Kuss
Eifersuchtsszene
Perzeptive Details
Perzeptive Details
(Pohl, 2007; cf. Conway, 1992)
10
My
research
vita
Neuchâtel
2010
11
My
research
vita
•
Decision
making
with
heuristics:
Adaptive
toolbox
metaphor
Neuchâtel
2010
12
Cognitive
illusions
Neuchâtel
2010
13
Collections
of
cognitive
illusions
•
–  Hell, Fiedler, & Gigerenzer (1993). Kognitive Täuschungen.
–  Pohl (2004). Cognitive illusions.
Thinking and judgment
–
–
–
–
–
•
Tversky & Kahneman (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristic and biases.
Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristic and biases.
Edwards & von Winterfeld (1986). On cognitive illusions and their implications.
Caverni, Fabre, & Gonzales (1990). Cognitive biases.
Gilovich, Griffin, & Kahneman (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of
intuitive judgment.
Memory
–
–
–
–
–
–
Sully (1881), Hodgson & Davey (1886/1887)
Bartlett (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.
Schacter et al. (1995). Memory distortions.
Roediger (1996). Memory illusions.
Roediger & McDermott (2000). Memory distortions.
Schacter (2001). The seven sins of memory.
Neuchâtel
2010
14
An
attempt
to
define
cognitive
illusions
1.  Deviation
from
reality
•
Problem
of
choosing
the
“correct”
normative
model
•
•
Necessity
of
a
control
group
Mean
effect
summed
across
many
trials
•
•
Unconscious
production
Additional
meta‐cognitive
and
motivational
factors
possible
•
Moderating
effects
of
instruction,
material,
and
procedures
possible
•
•
Distinction
to
“normal”
errors
(like
forgetting
and
inferences)
General
information‐processing
theories
as
explanations
2.  Systematic
deviation
3.  Involuntary
appearance
4.  Impossibility
to
avoid
5.  Specificity
of
phenomenon
Neuchâtel
2010
(Pohl, 2004)
15
Domains
of
cognitive
illusions
1. Thinking
=
application
of
a
rule
•
•
Examples:
Estimate
a
probability,
verify
a
logical
conclusion,
or
discover
a
hidden
rule
Problem:
Insufficient
knowledge;
intuitive
application
of
rule
2. Judgment
=
subjective
rating
of
a
specific
aspect
•
•
Examples:
Judgments
of
pleasantness,
frequency,
or
veracity
Problem:
Influences
of
the
given
situation;
uncertain
knowledge
3. Memory
=
recall
of
earlier
encoded
information
•
Neuchâtel
2010
Problem:
Reconstruction
of
partly
forgotten
material
(Pohl, 2004)
16
A
list
of
cognitive
illusions
•
•
Thinking
1.
Conjunction
fallacy
2.
+
3.
Bayesian
inferences
4.
Confirmation
bias
5.
Illusory
correlation
6.
Illusions
of
control
7.
Biases
in
deductive
reasoning
Judgement
8.
Availability
9.
Judgments
by
representativeness
10.
Anchoring
effect
11.
Validity
effect
Neuchâtel
2010
12.
Mere
exposure
effect
13.
Overconfidence 14.
Pollyanna
principle
•
Memory
15.
Moses
illusion
16.
Orientation
illusions
in
memory
17.
Associative
memory
illusions
18.
Effects
of
labeling
19.
Misinformation
effect
20.
Hindsight
bias
21.
Illusions
of
change
or
stability
(Pohl, 2004)
17
The
domain
of
illusionality
1.  Illusive
situations
(subjective
reality
≠
objective
reality)
–  perceiving
illusion
as
reality
–  perceiving
reality
as
illusion
(=
re‐interpreting
reality)
–  perceiving
reality
as
non‐reality
(=
selectively
focussing)
2.  Illusive
techniques
(procedures
to
yield
cognitive
illusions)
3.  Illusionality
(readiness
to
be
illusioned)
–  general
characteristics
•  restrictions
to
the
cognitive
system
•  ambiguous
information,
uncertainty
–  individual
differences
4.  Illusive
functions
–  pessimistic
vs.
optimistic
view
–  economy
of
cognitive
ressources
–  coping
(orientation,
support,
protection)
Neuchâtel
2010
(Gheorghiu, Molz, & Pohl, 2004)
18
The
debate
on
„Heuristics
and
biases“
(1999)
(1982)
(2002)
(SPUDM 20, 2005, Stockholm)
Neuchâtel
2010
19
The
debate
on
„Heuristics
and
biases“
Pessimistic
view
Neuchâtel
2010
Optimistic
view
(Jungermann, 1986)
20
The
debate
on
heuristics
Com
p
of ac utationa
l cap
tor
a
more
natural
Neuchâtel
2010
(Simon, 1953)
bilitie
s
more
artificial
21
The
domain
of
suggestionality
Neuchâtel
2010
22
The
domain
of
suggestionality
What makes a person
follow a suggestion?
Neuchâtel
2010
23
The
domain
of
suggestionality
1.  Suggestive
situations/phases
a)  perception
of
suggestive
cues
with
demand
characteristics
b)  acceptance/dominance
of
suggestive
cues
c)  effectiveness
of
suggestive
cues
(e.g.
cognitive
illusions)
2.  Suggestive
techniques
–  e.g.
plausibility,
repetition,
source
characteristics
3.  Suggestibility
–  general
characteristics
–  individual
differences
•  readiness
to
accept
suggestions
•  standardized
tests
available
4.  Suggestive
functions
Neuchâtel
2010
(Gheorghiu, 2000)
24
The
domain
of
suggestionality
Suggestive
techniques
General and individual
suggestibility
Person B
accepts x
Person A
suggests x
Suggestive situation
Suggestive functions
Neuchâtel
2010
(Gheorghiu, 2000)
25
The
domain
of
suggestionality
Neuchâtel
2010
26
Examples
of
communicative
influences
Neuchâtel
2010
27
Conjunction
fallacy
•
•
•
Example:
“Linda
problem”
–  Material:
Linda
is
31
years
old,
single,
outspoken,
and
very
bright.
She
majored
in
philosophy.
As
a
student,
she
was
deeply
concerned
with
issues
of
discrimination
and
social
justice,
and
also
participated
in
anti‐
nuclear
demonstrations.
–  Task:
Please
rank‐order
the
following
8
possibilities
according
to
their
probability:
Linda
is
(A)
a
bank
teller,
(B)
a
feminist,
(C)
a
feminist
bank
teller,
etc.
Results
–  participants
estimated
C
more
probable
than
B
(which
is
not
possible)
Critique
–  violation
of
Grice’s
Conversational
Maxims
–  inadequate
representation
(as
probability
version)
Neuchâtel
2010
(Tversky & Kahneman, 1983)
28
Conjunction
fallacy
Neuchâtel
2010
(Fiedler, 1988)
29
Bayesian
inferences:
Base‐rate
neglect
•
Example:
„The
taxi
cab
problem“
–  Text:
In
a
city,
15%
of
the
taxis
are
blue
(A)
and
85%
are
green
(B).
A
witness
to
a
taxi
accident
claimed
that
he
saw
a
blue
cab
(D).
However,
when
tested
for
his
ability
to
identify
the
correct
colour,
he
was
correct
only
in
80%
of
the
cases.
–  Task:
What
is
the
probability
that
the
accident
cab
was
blue?
–  Manipulation:
control
condition
vs.
causal
condition
(=
additional
cue
that
probability
of
accident
of
green
cab
=
85%
and
of
blue
cab
=
15%)
Neuchâtel
2010
(Tversky & Kahneman, 1980)
30
Bayesian
inferences:
Base‐rate
neglect
•
Interpretation:
participants
neglected
the
base
rates,
but
less
often
in
the
causal
condition
(but
still
not
sufficiently)
Neuchâtel
2010
(Tversky & Kahneman, 1980)
31
Bayesian
inferences:
Base‐rate
neglect
•
Example:
The
“rare‐disease
problem”
–  Text:
A
test
to
detect
a
disease
with
a
prevalence
of
1/1000
has
a
false
positive
rate
of
5%.
What
is
the
chance
that
someone
who
tested
positive
has
the
disease?
•
Results
–  probability
version:
Only
18%
of
participants
were
correct
(Casscells
et
al.,
1978)
–  frequency
version:
76%
of
participants
were
correct
(Cosmides
&
Tooby,
1996)
Neuchâtel
2010
32
Bayesian
inferences:
Base‐rate
neglect
Neuchâtel
2010
33
Bayesian
inferences:
Base‐rate
neglect
= .078 = 7.8%
Neuchâtel
2010
= .078 = 7.8%
34
Bayesian
inferences:
Base‐rate
neglect
Neuchâtel
2010
(Hoffrage et al., 2000)
35
Confirmation
bias
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ein Spion will unbemerkt in eine Stadt gelangen. Diese Stadt ist nun aber
hervorragend gesichert und Einlass durch das Stadttor erhält nur, wer die
Parole kennt. Das weiß auch der Spion, der sich – nicht dumm – in einem
Gebüsch in der Nähe des Stadttores versteckt und wartet.
Da kommt auch schon ein Händler des Wegs und begehrt Einlass. Der
Spion hört den Posten sagen: „28 – was ist deine Antwort?” Der Händler
antwortet „14” – und erhält Einlass.
Kurze Zeit später kommt ein Priester. Und wieder hört der Spion den
Posten: „16 – was ist deine Antwort?“ Als der Priester „8” antwortet, erhält
auch er Einlass. Der Spion ist sich fast sicher, wie die Parole funktioniert,
möchte aber noch eine weitere Person abwarten. Diese kommt auch bald in Gestalt eines Spielmannes daher. „8 – was ist
deine Antwort?” hört der Spion. Der Spielmann darf die Stadt betreten,
nachdem er „4” geantwortet hat.
Nun geht der Spion zum Wachtposten, der ihn fragt: „20 – was ist deine
Antwort?” Da antwortet der Spion „10” und …
wird sofort verhaftet. – Welche Antwort hätte er geben müssen?
Neuchâtel
2010
36
Confirmation
bias
•
Tasks
and
typical
questions
(for
2
groups):
Group
1:
Is
person
x
introvert?
Do
you
like
to
stay
at
home?
•
Group
2:
Is
person
x
extrovert?
Do
you
love
to
go
out?
Do
you
read
many
books?
Are
you
single?
Do
you
have
lots
of
friends?
Do
you
love
to
be
in
public?
Are
you
shy?
Are
you
afraid
of
crowds?
Do
you
go
to
parties
a
lot?
Do
you
enjoy
talking
to
others?
Typical
results:
–  Group
1
gives
higher
introversion
ratings
than
Group
2
–  Group
2
gives
higher
extroversion
ratings
than
Group
1
Neuchâtel
2010
37
Deductive
reasoning
•
Wason
selection
task
–  Material:
4
cards
with
letters
on
one
and
digits
on
the
other
side
E
K
4
7
–  Rule:
„If
there
is
a
vowel
on
one
side
of
the
card,
then
there
is
an
even
number
on
the
other
side.“
–  Task:
Which
cards
have
to
be
turned
over
to
verify
the
rule?
–  Results:
•  Most
people
turn
cards
„E“
and
„4“
•  Correct
solution:
Cards
„E“
and
„7“
Neuchâtel
2010
38
Deductive
reasoning
Neuchâtel
2010
39
Deductive
reasoning
Neuchâtel
2010
40
Deductive
reasoning
•
•
•
False
logic:
–  If
A,
then
B

If
B,
then
A
–  If
all
A
are
B

All
B
are
A
Psychological
examples:
–  Whoever
is
intelligent,
passes
the
exam.
–  Having
a
flew
is
accompanied
by
high
fever.
–  Sexual
abuse
leads
to
eating
disorders.
Forensic
examples
(Die
ZEIT,
33/2002):
–  Bayerischer
Innenminister:
Most
heroin
addicts
have
started
with
Marijuana.
Therefore,
marijuana
should
be
prohibited.
–  Defensive
argument
for
O.
J.
Simpson:
Only
one
from
2,500
beaten
wifes
gets
also
later
killed
by
her
husband!
But:
8
out
of
9
wifes
who
were
killed
by
their
husbands
were
also
previously
beaten
by
him!
Neuchâtel
2010
41
Deductive
reasoning
Neuchâtel
2010
(Evans et al., 1983)
42
Anchoring
and
framing
•
Typical
anchoring
study
–  Comparative
question:
Is
the
percentage
of
African
nations
in
the
UN
smaller
or
larger
than
10%
[65%]?
–  Exact‐estimate
question:
How
large
is
it
exactly?
Neuchâtel
2010
(Tversky & Kahneman, 1974)
43
Anchoring
and
framing
Neuchâtel
2010
44
Validity
effect
•
Influence of repetition on familiarity and thus perceived validity
Neuchâtel
2010
45
Mere
exposure
effect
Neuchâtel
2010
(Bornstein et al., 1990)
46
Moses
illusion
Neuchâtel
2010
(Reder & Kusbit, 1991; painting by Edward Hicks, 1780–1849)
47
Associative
memory
illusion
•
The
material
consists
of
four
lists
with
15
words
each
that
are
all
associated
to
a
critical,
but
not
included
target
word.
1.  bed,
rest,
awake,
tired,
dream,
wake,
snooze,
blanket,
doze,
slumber,
snore,
nap,
peace,
yawn,
drowsy.
2.  door,
glass,
pane,
shade,
ledge,
sill,
house,
open,
curtain,
frame,
view,
breeze,
sash,
screen,
shutter.
3.  nurse,
sick,
lawyer,
medicine,
health,
hospital,
dentist,
physician,
ill,
patient,
office,
stethoscope,
surgeon,
clinic,
cure.
4.  sour,
candy,
sugar,
bitter,
good,
taste,
tooth,
nice,
honey,
soda,
chocolate,
heart,
cake,
tart,
pie.
•
The
critical
target
words
are
sleep,
window,
doctor,
and
sweet,
respectively.
Neuchâtel
2010
(Roediger & Gallo, 2004)
48
Associative
memory
illusion
Neuchâtel
2010
(Roediger & Gallo, 2004)
49
Associative
memory
illusion
Neuchâtel
2010
(Roediger & Gallo, 2004)
50
Associative
memory
illusion
Neuchâtel
2010
(Roediger & Gallo, 2004)
51
Labelling
Neuchâtel
2010
(Carmichael et al., 1932)
52
Labelling
Neuchâtel
2010
(Carmichael et al., 1932)
53
Labelling
Neuchâtel
2010
(Carmichael et al., 1932)
54
Labelling
•
•
How
fast
were
the
cars
going
when
they
hit
each
other
[smashed
into
each
other]?
Did
you
see
broken
glass
on
the
ground?
Neuchâtel
2010
(Loftus & Palmer, 1974)
55
Labelling
•
•
Which
color
had
the
car
passing
a
[the]
barn?
(Later:)
Did
you
see
a
barn?
Neuchâtel
2010
(Loftus, 1975)
56
Misinformation
effect
•
Original
slide
(out
of
a
series)
•
Questioning
1:
Did another car pass the red car while it was
stopped at the intersection with the yield [stop] sign?
Questioning
2:
Which traffic sign did you see at the intersection?
•
or
Neuchâtel
2010
(Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978)
57
Misinformation
effect
Neuchâtel
2010
(Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978)
58
Implanting
memories:
Lost
in
the
mall
Neuchâtel
2010
(Loftus, 1993; Loftus & Pickrell, 1995)
59
Implanting
memories:
Lost
in
the
mall
•
Example:
Chris
(in
consecutive
interrogations)
–  That day I was so scared that I would never see my family again. I knew that I was in trouble.
–  I remember mom telling me never to do that again.
–  I remember the man asking me if I was lost. I remember that old man’s
flanell shirt.
–  I was with you guys for a second and I think I went over to look at the
toy store, the Kay-bee toy and uh, we got lost and I was looking around
and I thought, “Uh-oh. I’m in trouble now.“ You know. And then I … I
thought I was never going to see my family again. I was really scared you know. And then this old man, I think he was
wearing a blue flannel, came up to me … he was kind of old. He was
kind of bald on top … he had like a ring of gray hair … and he had
glasses.
Neuchâtel
2010
(Loftus, 1993; Loftus & Pickrell, 1995)
60
Implanting
memories:
Childhood
kidnapping
attempt
Neuchâtel
2010
Jean Piaget (1896-1981)
61
Implanting
memories:
Hot
air
balloon
ride
Neuchâtel
2010
(Wade et al., 2002)
62
Hindsight
bias
Example
Neuchâtel
2010
(taken from Ash, 2009)
63
Hindsight
bias
Neuchâtel
2010
(Pohl, 2007)
64
Hindsight
bias
Memory design
93
80
72
Estimate
Estimate
Neuchâtel
2010
Solution
Hindsight bias
Recalled estimate Experimental
Recalled estimate Control
65
Hindsight
bias
Hypothetical design
93
80
72
Estimate
Control
Neuchâtel
2010
Hindsight bias
Solution
Hypothetical estimate
Experimental
66
Proportion of recalled estimates (%)
Hindsight
bias
Estimate
20
Solution
15
10
Ctr.
Exp.
5
0
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
Bias index
Neuchâtel
2010
67
Hindsight
bias
Neuchâtel
2010
(Pohl, 2004)
68
Conclusions
Neuchâtel
2010
69
The
domain
of
suggestionality
Suggestive
techniques
General and individual
suggestibility
Person B
accepts x
Person A
suggests x
Suggestive situation
Suggestive functions
Neuchâtel
2010
(Gheorghiu, 2000)
70
The
domain
of
suggestionality
•
Suggestive
techniques
–  state
of
uncertainty
•  all
cognitive
illusions
[!]
–  inadequate
representation
•  conjunction
fallacy,
base‐rate
neglect,
deductive
reasoning
–  violation
of
general
rules
•  conjunction
fallacy,
anchoring,
Moses
illusion,
labelling,
misinformation
effect,
implanting
–  confusions
•  Moses
illusion,
associative
memory
illusion
–  repetition
•  validity
effect,
mere‐exposure
effect
Neuchâtel
2010
71
The
domain
of
suggestionality
•
General
suggestibility
–  demand
characteristics
•  base‐rate
neglect,
confirmation
bias,
labelling,
misinformation
effect,
implanting
–  knowledge
updating/coherence
(“adaptive”
learning)
•  anchoring,
validity
effect,
associative
memory
illusion,
labelling,
misinformation
effect,
hindsight
bias
–  efficient
processing
(heuristics)
•  anchoring,
base‐rate
neglect,
confirmation
bias
–  fluency/familiarity
•  validity
effect,
mere‐exposure
effect,
Moses
illusion
–  self‐serving
motives/coping
Neuchâtel
2010
72
Self‐serving
motives/coping
Neuchâtel
2010
(Greenwald, 1980)
73
Self‐serving
motives/coping
Identity
Neuchâtel
2010
(Kotre, 1998)
74
Summary
•
•
Explanations
of
cognitive
illusions
–  not
all
fully
understood
–  often
several,
competing
explanations
–  possibly
multiple
causes
Influences
of
language
–  as
medium
of
…
•  problem
representation
•  instruction
•  memory
representation
–  on
cognitive
processes
in
…
•  judgment
•  thinking
•  memory
Neuchâtel
2010
75
Thank
you
for
your
attention!
pohl@psychologie.uni‐mannheim.de
Neuchâtel
2010
76