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.

Non- compensatory 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 MENTAL STATEMENT Compensatory rule“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.