System 1, System 2 and Attribute Substitution
Intro to the Representativeness Heuristic
Psychology 466: Judgment & Decision Making
Instructor: John Miyamoto
10/20/2015: Lecture 4-1
Note: This Powerpoint presentation may contain macros that I wrote to help me
create the slides. The macros aren’t needed to view the slides. You can disable or
delete the macros without any change to the presentation.
Outline
• Finish: Consequences of Availability Heuristic
• Two systems of information processing:
♦
System I: Fast associative system
♦
System II: Slower rule-based system
• Stroop effect – an example where Systems I and II conflict.
• Role of Systems I and II to the reasoning process
• Attribute substitution: A general model for heuristic reasoning
• The Representativeness Heuristic an important example of attribute substitution
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Autumn 2012
Lecture probably
ends here
Table Summarizing Main Features of System 1 and System 2
2
What Causes Hindsight Bias?
• Self-serving bias? Self-protective bias?
• Availability of causes – after knowing the true outcome,
causes that lead to the known outcome become more salient
and causes that lead to non-occurring outcomes become
less salient or are forgotten.
• In visual hindsight bias, Harley, Carlson & Loftus argued for a
fluency misattribution.
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Biases that Can Result from Availability - Order of Pro and Con Reasons
3
Effects of Order on Pro & Con Reasons
Condition 1:
♦
PRO: First, list as many reasons as you can in favor of X,
e.g., in favor of making public the names of people who
sign petitions for referendums.
♦
CON: Second, list as many reasons as you can against X,
e.g., against making public the names of people who sign petitions
for referendums
Condition 2: Same as Condition 1 with the “pro” and “con”
conditions in the opposite order.
Result: More pro reasons are given when pro reasons given before
con reasons (Condition 1) than when con reasons given before
pro reasons (Condition 2).
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Planning Fallacy
4
Planning Fallacy
• Planning Fallacy – the tendency to underestimate the time or
difficulty needed to accomplish a complex task.
♦
E.g., how long will it take to finish this project?
♦
E.g., how hard will it be to get everyone to agree on a compromise?
• Is the planning fallacy due to the greater availability of reasons
why a plan will succeed than reasons why it will face obstacles?
• Availability as "number of memories"
can conflict with
Availability as "ease of mental construction."
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Conclusions re Availability
5
Availability: Conclusions
• The availability heuristic is a reasonable way to judge the
likelihood of events. It leads to good answers most of the time.
• The availability heuristic produces biased judgments when
factors unrelated to likelihood affect encoding, ease of retrieval
or ease of mental constructions.
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Start Discussion of System 1 and System 2
6
Kahneman & Frederick (2002), Table 2.1: Two Cognitive Systems
System 1 (Intuitive)
System 2 (Reflective)
Process Characteristics
Automatic
Skilled Action
Associative
Rapid, parallel
Effortless
Process Characteristics
Controlled
Rule Application
Deductive
Slow, serial
Effortful
Content Characteristics
Affective (emotional)
Causal propensities (relationships)
Concrete, specific
Prototypes
Content Characteristics
Neutral
Statistical relationships
Abstract
Sets
Heuristic Reasoning (fast)
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Rules of Reasoning (slow)
Examples of System 1 and System 2
7
Examples of System 1 and System 2
Examples of System 1
• Recognizing the emotion on the face of a friend
• Noticing that in the USA, little girls wear pink more often than
do little boys.
Examples of System 2
• You know that if you want to travel to Canada, you must take
your passport. Suppose that Bill wants to travel to Canada. You
infer that Bill must take his passport.
• Joe drove 250 miles and used 10 gallons of gas.
His car gets 25 miles per gallon.
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Back to Table Showing System 1 and System 2
8
Kahneman & Frederick (2002), Table 2.1: Two Cognitive Systems
System 1 (Intuitive)
System 2 (Reflective)
Process Characteristics
Automatic
Skilled Action
Associative
Rapid, parallel
Effortless
Process Characteristics
Controlled
Rule Application
Deductive
Slow, serial
Effortful
Content Characteristics
Affective (emotional)
Causal propensities (relationships)
Concrete, specific
Prototypes
Content Characteristics
Neutral
Statistical relationships
Abstract
Sets
Heuristic Reasoning (fast)
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Rules of Reasoning (slow)
Focus on Automatic vs Controlled Processing
9
Automatic versus Controlled Processes
System 1 (Intuitive)
System 2 (Reflective)
Process Characteristics
Automatic
.....
Process Characteristics
Controlled
......
Content Characteristics
Content Characteristics
Automatic processes
o Highly practiced, e.g., understanding spoken English; reading; recognizing
objects
o Process can be executed without attending to it
o Initiation and execution of the process is involuntary,
e.g., you can’t choose to understand English or not to understand English.
Controlled processes
o Often not highly practiced, e.g., multiplying 19 x 23.
o Requires attention and effort whether or not it is highly practiced,
e.g., writing a short essay, solving a math problem, drawing a diagram of your
apartment.
o Initiation and execution of the process can be voluntarily controlled.
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Focus on Associative vs Deductive Processing
10
Associative versus Deductive Reasoning
System 1 (Intuitive)
System 2 (Reflective)
Process Characteristics
Associative
.....
Process Characteristics
Deductive (formal rules of reasoning)
......
Content Characteristics
Content Characteristics
Associative reasoning: Emphasizes frequent or typical relationships.
o E.g., if you see a dog, you expect to see his master.
o E.g., if you hear a breaking sound, you expect to see that something has been
broken.
o E.g., if you smell the medicine in a dentist’s office, you anticipate some pain
and discomfort.
Reasoning by rules: Emphasizes inferences that are sanctioned by rules of reasoning
o E.g., if the food at a restaurant was extremely good the first time that you go to it,
it will probably be good, but not quite as good if you eat there a second time.
o E.g., it is less likely that Linda is a bank teller who is a feminist than that
she is simply a bank teller whether or not she is a feminist.
o E.g., large random samples provide better estimates than small random samples.
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Focus on Rapid Parallel vs Slow Serial Processing
11
Paralle versus Serial
System 1 (Intuitive)
System 2 (Reflective)
Process Characteristics
Rapid, parallel
.....
Process Characteristics
Slow, serial
......
Content Characteristics
Content Characteristics
Parallel processes – multiple cognitive processes can be executed concurrently
o
o
E.g., while driving, one can process visual information from many parts of the visual field.
E.g., while understanding a sentence, one can process the possible meanings at the same time
as one processes the acoustic analysis of the sentence.
Serial processes – only one cognitive process can be executing at any moment
o
o
While talking on the phone and balancing one’s checkbook, one allocates attention to one or
the other process, but not both.
While multiplying 17 times 12 in one’s head, the multiplication and addition steps occur in
sequence, not simultaneously.
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Focus on Content Characteristics
12
Kahneman & Frederick (2002), Table 2.1: Two Cognitive Systems
System 1 (Intuitive)
System 2 (Reflective)
Process Characteristics
.....
Process Characteristics
.....
Content Characteristics
Content Characteristics
Affective (emotional)
Causal propensities (relationships)
Concrete, specific
Prototypes
Neutral
Statistics
Abstract
Sets
• The typical content of System 1 and 2 reasoning differs in content in obvious ways.
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Different Versions of the Stroop Effect
13
Task 1A: Read down the display.
Call out (or whisper) whether each word
is printed in UPPER or lower case.
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
LEFT/RIGHT Version of the Task
14
Task 1B: Read down the display.
Call out (or whisper) whether each word
is printed to the left or right of center.
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Question for Class: Which Task was Harder?
15
Which Task Was Harder?
• Was Task 1A easier or harder than Task 1B?
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
UPPER/LOWER Case Discrimination Task with LEFT/RIGHT Stimulus
16
Task 2A: Read down the display.
Call out (or whisper) whether each word
is printed in upper or lower case.
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
LEFT/RIGHT Position Discrimination Task with Left/Right Stimulus
17
Task 2B: Read down the display.
Call out (or whisper) whether each word
is printed to the LEFT or RIGHT of center.
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Question for Class: Which Task was Harder?
18
Which Task Was Harder?
• Was Task 2A easier or harder than Task 2B?
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
UPPER/LOWER Case Discrimination Task with Upper/Lower Case Stimulus
19
Task 3A: Read down the display.
Call out (or whisper) whether each word
is printed in upper or lower case.
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
LEFT/RIGHT Position Discrimination Task with Upper/Lower Stimulus
20
Task 3B: Read down the display.
Call out (or whisper) whether each word
is printed to the LEFT or RIGHT of center.
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Question for Class: Which Task was Harder?
21
Which Task Was Harder?
• Was Task 3A easier or harder than Task 3B?
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Summary of Task x Stimulus
22
Task A: Distinguish upper from lower case.
Task B: Distinguish left from right position of text.
Task 2A and 2B
Task 2A and 2B
Typically:
Task 2A easier than Task 2B but Task 3A harder than Task 3B.
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Classic Stroop Task
23
The Classic Stroop Task
(An illustration of automatic and controlled processes)
• State the color in which each word is printed.
• Task 1:
elf, ball, table, storm, group, end, find, away, drop, book, fish, tree, ...
• Task 2:
red, blue, red, red, red, blue, blue, blue, red, blue, blue, red, red, ...
• Task 3:
red, blue, red, red, red, blue, blue, blue, red, blue, blue, red, red, ...
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Same Slide with Comment re Which Task is Easier or Harder
24
The Classic Stroop Task
(An illustration of automatic and controlled processes)
• State the color in which each word is printed.
• Set 1:
elf, ball, table, storm, group, end, find, away, drop, book, fish, tree, ...
• Set 2:
red, blue, red, red, red, blue, blue, blue, red, blue, blue, red, red, ...
• Set 3:
red, blue, red, red, red, blue, blue, blue, red, blue, blue, red, red, ...
• Stroop effect – Set 3 is much slower than Set 1 or Set 2.
• Why is Set 3 harder than Set 1 or Set 2?
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Diagram of Information Process for Stroop Effect
25
Response Conflict in Stroop Effect
System 1:
Process Meaning
(automatic,
involuntary, fast)
Stimulus:
"blue"
Working Memory:
Select Response
"blue" or "red"
System 2:
Name Font Color
(rule-governed,
voluntary, slow)
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Table: System I versus System II
26
Explanation of the Stroop Effect – Why Does It Occur?
• Reading is a highly practiced, automatic skill. (System 1)
♦
Central processor accesses the word meaning (concept of red
or concept of blue) quickly and automatically.
♦
This process is involuntary (cannot easily be suppressed or inhibited).
• Task instruction requires following a rule
(speak the font color - System 2 process)
♦
Rule processing is slower than the automatic reading process.
• Response conflict between saying "blue" when looking at a blue
"red". Also, conflict between saying "red" when looking at a red
"blue".
Response conflict causes slower response.
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Return to the Table that Compares System 1 to System 2
27
Kahneman & Frederick (2002), Table 2.1: Two Cognitive Systems
System 1 (Intuitive)
System 2 (Reflective)
Process Characteristics
Automatic
Skilled Action
Associative
Rapid, parallel
Effortless
Process Characteristics
Controlled
Rule Application
Deductive
Slow, serial
Effortful
Content Characteristics
Affective (emotional)
Causal propensities (relationships)
Concrete, specific
Prototypes
Content Characteristics
Neutral
Statistical relationships
Abstract
Sets
Heuristic Reasoning (fast)
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Rules of Reasoning (slow)
Transition to Discussion of Attribute Substitution
28
Transition to Topic of Attribute Substitution
• Attribute substitution is a process that regulates the conflict
between System 1 and System 2.
• System 1 and System 2 are sources of inferences.
Sometimes they conflict
• Hypothesis:
Attribute substitution occurs often in judgment processes.
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
What is an Attribute?
29
Attributes
The following terms have the
same or similar meaning:
Attributes of a Car
(when purchasing a car)
• Cues that describe the objects or
options in a choice;
• Price
• Dimensions on which the
objects or options in a choice
can be described;
• Color
• Characteristics of the objects or
options in a choice;
• Mileage
• Attractiveness
• Size
• .... etc.
• Properties of objects
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Intro to Attribute Substitution
30
Definition of Attribute Substitution
• Person wants to evaluate a case with respect to
a target attribute.
♦
E.g., you are interviewing job applicants.
Target Attribute: How they will perform on the job over the long run.
• The target attribute is hard to evaluate directly but
information about a related heuristic attribute comes
readily to mind.
♦
E.g. Heuristic attribute = success of job interview.
• Attribute Substitution: Judgment of target attribute is based
on the heuristic attribute.
• K&F example: Professor hears the talk of a job candidate.
♦
Target attribute: How successful will this candidate be in the long run?
♦
Heuristic attribute: How impressive was the talk?
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Attribute Substitution Occurs in Heuristic Judgment
31
Examples of Attribute Substitution
• Habitual substitution of availability for probability (availability)
• Habitual substitution of similarity for probability.
(This topic will be discussed very soon.)
• Next: Changing the question in eyewitness memory
without being aware that one has changed the question.
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
32
Lineups versus Show-Ups – What Are They?
• Classic showup: Police show only one person to a witness.
Question: "Is he the man you saw?"
• Classic lineup: Police show 7 people to the witness:
Question: "Do you see the perpetrator in the line up?"
• Contrary to most people's expectations, show ups are more
accurate than line ups. Why are showups more accurate than
lineups?
Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '15
Why Lineups & Showups Differ as Cognitive Tasks
33
Cognitive Differences Between Lineups and Showups
• Classic showup:
♦
Witness asks himself/herself: "Did I see this person do the crime?"
• Classic lineup:
♦
Witness assumes that the perpetrator is in the lineup.
♦
Witness asks himself/herself:
"Which of these men looks the most like the person that I saw?" Mistake!
Mistake!
Witness changes the question without being aware that this has happened.
• Sequential presentation = sequential showup
♦
With each person, the witness asks himself/herself:
"Am I sure that this is the person who I saw do the crime?"
• Sequential showups greatly reduce the rate of false identifications and
slightly reduce the rate of a true id when perpetrator is present.
Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '15
Representativeness Heuristic
34
Two Implicit Theses in the Representativeness Hypothesis
Event A
is more representative
than Event B
Event A
is more probable
than Event B
Representativeness Hypothesis:
Events that are more representative appear to be more probable.
I. Irregularity Thesis: A sample or event appears to be
representative if it reflects the irregularity of the random process
by which it is generated.
II. Similarity Thesis: A potential outcome appears to be
representative if it is similar to typical members of a population.
Conversely, a population appears to be representative if its typical
members are similar to a known event or outcome.
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Examples of the Irregularity Thesis
35
Examples of the Irregularity Thesis
Irregularity Thesis: A sample or event appears to be
representative if it reflects the irregularity of the random process
by which it is thought to be generated.
Intuition: Random events are (invariably) patternless.
Inference: Events that display patterns are not random –
they have underlying causes.
EXAMPLES
• Intuitive coin flips: HTHTTHTHH ....
• Bombing runs on London.
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Intuitive Concept of Randomness Is Too Irregular
36
Intuitive Concept of Randomness is Too Irregular
• Basic Fallacy regarding Randomness:
People believe that a random pattern will not possess
any appearances of sequential patterns.
Intuition: Random events are (invariably) patternless.
Mistake!
Inference: Events that display patterns are not random – Mistake!
they have underlying causes.
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
Examples of the Similarity Thesis - END
37
Examples of the Similarity Thesis
Similarity Thesis: People substitute a judgment of similarity for a
judgment of probability, e.g., if asked to judge how likely is Jeb
Bush to win the Republican presidential nomination, people might
base the judgment on how similar he is to previous nominees.
EXAMPLES:
♦
Intuitive sampling distributions and insensitivity to sample size.
♦
Misconception of regression.
♦
Insensitivity to sources of sample bias. (Social roles).
♦
Ignoring base rate (prior probability) when judging posterior probability.
♦
Conjunction fallacy.
♦
Dilution effect.
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
END
38
Set Up for Instructor
• Classroom Support Services (CSS),
35 Kane Hall, 206-543-9900
• CSS: Try setting your resolution to 1024 by 768
• Run Powerpoint. For most reliable start up:
♦
Start laptop & projector before connecting them together
♦
If necessary, reboot the laptop
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15
39