Thinking
So what is ‘thinking’?
• In a general sense, thinking is the
intentional use of cognitive capabilities for
some purpose.
– Recall some kind of information
– Make sense of some incoming stimulus
– Develop a judgment on some person or thing
– Make a decision
• “I’m thinking.”
What does thinking entail?
• Recall of relevant memories
• Comparison of new information with
existing knowledge
• Integration of new information into
cognitive structure
– Schema
• Encoding of new memory structure
• Potentially, action based on new structure
Judgment and decision-making
• Generally, limited effort is applied to
judgments and decisions
– Satisficing
– Elimination of alternatives as quickly and
simply as possible
– Exception: Decisions that are highly salient to
the individual
• Monetary risk
• Physical risk
• Social risk
Problems
• People exhibit predictable biases in their
judgments and decision-making
– Risk judgments
• Overestimate the likelihood of risks that are
sudden, unexpected, socially salient
– Terrorism
• Underestimate risks that are mundane, predictable
and less ‘newsworthy’
– Heart disease
– Auto accidents
Judgment biases
• Categorization bias
– Categorization of phenomena
– Tendency within category
– Overestimation of the ability to predict from
category tendencies
• Racial, gender, etc. stereotyping
Naïve scientist
• One view states that people act as naïve
scientists
– Informal logic
– Experimentation
Naïve theorist
• Method of difference:
– Distinctiveness
– Consistency over time
– Consistency over modality
– Consensus
Decision Rules
• Compensatory
• Noncompensatory
– Conjunctive Decision Rule
– Disjunctive Decision Rule
– Lexicographic Rule
Compensatory
Decision Rules
A type of decision
rule in which a
consumer evaluates
each alternative in
terms of each
relevant attribute and
then selects the
brand with the
highest weighted
score.
Noncompensatory
Decision
Rules
A type of decision
rule by which positive
evaluation of an
attribute does not
compensate for a
negative evaluation of
the same object on
some other attribute.
Conjunctive
Decision
Rule
A noncompensatory
decision rule in which
the person establishes a
minimally acceptable
cutoff point for each
attribute evaluated.
Objects that fall below
the cutoff point on any
one attribute are
eliminated from further
consideration.
Disjunctive
Rule
A noncompensatory
decision rule in which
consumers establish a
minimally acceptable
cutoff point for each
relevant attribute.
Lexicographic
Rule
A noncompensatory
decision rule – the
person first ranks
attributes in terms of
their importance, then
compares objects in
terms of the attribute
considered most
important.
Affect
Referral
Decision
Rule
A simplified decision
rule by which a person
makes a choice among
alternatives on the basis
of their previously
established overall
ratings of the alternatives
considered, rather than
on specific attributes.
Table 16.7 Hypothetical Use of Popular
Decision Rules in Making a Decision to
Purchase an Ultralight Laptop
DECISION RULE
Compensatory rule
MENTAL STATEMENT
“I selected the computer that came out best when I
balanced the good ratings against the bad ratings.”
Conjunctive rule
“I selected the computer that had no bad features.”
Disjunctive rule
“I picked the computer that excelled in at least one
attribute.”
Lexicographic rule
“I looked at the feature that was most important to me and
chose the computer that ranked highest on that attribute.”
Affect referral rule
“I bought the brand with the highest overall rating.”
Biases
• Availability
– Most accessible thoughts are more likely to
be used in thinking
•
•
•
•
Recent activation
Integrated into schema
Used heavily
Encoded in multiple ways/along with powerful
emotions, etc.
Attribution theory
• Attribution theory developed in the 1960s and
1970s
– Heider, 1958
– Jones, 1960s
– Kelley, 1970s
• The main concerns in attribution theory were
how people developed informal theories about
how the world works, and what the nature of
those beliefs was
– Special case: “Self-attribution theory”
• Bem
Attribution bias
• Findings tended to indicate that when
someone observes another doing or
saying something, the observer tends to
attribute it to a relatively stable, enduring
personality trait
• When asked why they behaved in certain
ways, people tend to give situational
explanations—they did it because the
situation called for it
When observing characters on
television, etc. how do we attribute
motives, situational conditions, etc.?
• Generally speaking, characters are treated as
‘real’ for the sake of attribution. Their actions are
observable and are assumed to be motivated,
that the character was aware that his actions
would have the observed effects, and that the
effect was actually a result of the behavior.
• Internal motivation of the character, in the
absence of countervailing information, is
assumed.
Character motivation
• Actions that are considered unusual given the portrayed
circumstances are assumed to be motivated and to
reveal internal characteristics of the character.
• If the actions observed run counter to social norms, the
dispositional attribution is even stronger.
• Once a dispositional attribution is arrived at, further
action by the character is interpreted from the standpoint
of the schema that relates to the character. Ambiguous
actions are interpreted either in a positive manner
(positive attribution) or negatively (negative attribution)
based on previous attribution.
Reality TV
• Character talks to the camera, explaining
his actions
• Plot twists and “what if’s”
• Detective stories/murder mysteries
• News coverage of crime, politics, etc.