1. 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.

2. 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 2 Table Summarizing Main Features of System 1 and System 2 Lecture probably ends here

3. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 3 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. Biases that Can Result from Availability - Order of Pro and Con Reasons

4. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 4 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). Planning Fallacy

5. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 5 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." Conclusions re Availability

6. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 6 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. Start Discussion of System 1 and System 2

7. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 7 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 Examples of System 1 and System 2 Heuristic Reasoning (fast) Rules of Reasoning (slow)

8. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 8 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. Back to Table Showing System 1 and System 2

9. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 9 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 Focus on Automatic vs Controlled Processing Heuristic Reasoning (fast) Rules of Reasoning (slow)

10. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 10 Automatic versus Controlled Processes 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. System 1 (Intuitive)System 2 (Reflective) Process Characteristics Automatic..... Process Characteristics Controlled...... Content Characteristics Focus on Associative vs Deductive Processing

11. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 11 Associative versus Deductive Reasoning 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. System 1 (Intuitive)System 2 (Reflective) Process Characteristics Associative..... Process Characteristics Deductive (formal rules of reasoning)...... Content Characteristics Focus on Rapid Parallel vs Slow Serial Processing

12. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 12 Paralle versus Serial Parallel processes – multiple cognitive processes can be executed concurrently o E.g., while driving, one can process visual information from many parts of the visual field. o 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 While talking on the phone and balancing one’s checkbook, one allocates attention to one or the other process, but not both. o While multiplying 17 times 12 in one’s head, the multiplication and addition steps occur in sequence, not simultaneously. System 1 (Intuitive)System 2 (Reflective) Process Characteristics Rapid, parallel..... Process Characteristics Slow, serial...... Content Characteristics Focus on Content Characteristics

13. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 13 Kahneman & Frederick (2002), Table 2.1: Two Cognitive Systems System 1 (Intuitive)System 2 (Reflective) Process Characteristics..... Content Characteristics Affective (emotional) Causal propensities (relationships) Concrete, specific Prototypes Content Characteristics Neutral Statistics Abstract Sets The typical content of System 1 and 2 reasoning differs in content in obvious ways. Different Versions of the Stroop Effect

14. Read down the display. Call out (or whisper) whether each word is printed in UPPER or lower case. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 14 LEFT/RIGHT Version of the Task Task 1A:

15. 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 15 Question for Class: Which Task was Harder? Task 1B:

16. Which Task Was Harder? Was Task 1A easier or harder than Task 1B? Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 16 UPPER/LOWER Case Discrimination Task with LEFT/RIGHT Stimulus

17. Read down the display. Call out (or whisper) whether each word is printed in upper or lower case. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 17 LEFT/RIGHT Position Discrimination Task with Left/Right Stimulus Task 2A:

18. 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 18 Question for Class: Which Task was Harder? Task 2B:

19. Which Task Was Harder? Was Task 2A easier or harder than Task 2B? Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 19 UPPER/LOWER Case Discrimination Task with Upper/Lower Case Stimulus

20. Read down the display. Call out (or whisper) whether each word is printed in upper or lower case. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 20 LEFT/RIGHT Position Discrimination Task with Upper/Lower Stimulus Task 3A:

21. 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 21 Question for Class: Which Task was Harder? Task 3B:

22. Which Task Was Harder? Was Task 3A easier or harder than Task 3B? Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 22 Summary of Task x Stimulus

23. Task A: Distinguish upper from lower case. Task B: Distinguish left from right position of text. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 23 Task 2A and 2B Typically: Task 2A easier than Task 2B but Task 3A harder than Task 3B. Classic Stroop Task

24. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 24 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,... Same Slide with Comment re Which Task is Easier or Harder

25. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 25 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? Diagram of Information Process for Stroop Effect

26. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 26 Response Conflict in Stroop Effect Stimulus: " blue " System 2: Name Font Color (rule-governed, voluntary, slow) System 1: Process Meaning (automatic, involuntary, fast) Working Memory: Select Response "blue" or "red" Table: System I versus System II fast slower

27. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 27 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. Return to the Table that Compares System 1 to System 2

28. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 28 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 Transition to Discussion of Attribute Substitution Heuristic Reasoning (fast) Rules of Reasoning (slow)

29. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 29 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. What is an Attribute?

30. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 30 Attributes The following terms have the same or similar meaning: Cues that describe the objects or options in a choice; Dimensions on which the objects or options in a choice can be described; Characteristics of the objects or options in a choice; Properties of objects Intro to Attribute Substitution Attributes of a Car (when purchasing a car) Price Mileage Color Attractiveness Size.... etc.

31. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 31 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? Attribute Substitution Occurs in Heuristic Judgment

32. 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

33. Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '15 33 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? Why Lineups & Showups Differ as Cognitive Tasks

34. Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '15 34 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?" 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. Representativeness Heuristic Mistake!

35. 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. Two Implicit Theses in the Representativeness Hypothesis Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 35 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. 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. Examples of the Irregularity Thesis

36. 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 36 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. Intuitive Concept of Randomness Is Too Irregular

37. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 37 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. Inference:Events that display patterns are not random – they have underlying causes. Examples of the Similarity Thesis - END Mistake!

38. Examples of the Similarity Thesis 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 38 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. END

39. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '15 39 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