Understanding Cognitive Processing and Decision-Making

Topics * Content 1. Cognitive processing b.Thinking and decision-making: * Rational (controlled) thinking * Intuitive (automatic) thinking 2. Reliability of cognitive processes a. Biases in thinking and decision-making • the contribution of research methods used in the cognitive approach to understanding (*the topics of) human behaviour • ethical considerations in the investigation of the cognitive approach to understanding (*the topics of) human behaviour. SAQs and ERQs can be asked on all the syllabus stated in blue. Topic 1: Cognitive Processes b.Thinking and decision- making In the computer metaphor different cognitive processes are responsible for processing information at different stages. For example the function of memory is to encode, store and retrieve information. The function of thinking is to modify this information. The ability to understand other people, and express oneself to others can also be categorised under thinking. Unlike other cognitive processes, thinking produces new information. Decision-making is a cognitive process that involves selecting one possible belief or action and make a choice between the alternatives. Before we choose, we have to analyse. Therefore thinking is a prerequisite to any act of decision-making. Theory 1: Dual process Model of Thinking One model of thinking is the Dual Process Model. This argues that there are two systems of thinking, intuitive and rational. They are often given the nickname of “System 1 and System 2” which was coined by Stanovich and West. System 1 is an automatic and intuitive way of thinking based on short-cuts called “heuristics.” Heuristics focus on one aspect of a complex problem and ignore others. This mode of thinking is fast and efficient, but is prone to mistakes when our assumptions do not match the reality of a specific situation. (We look at these mistakes when we consider biases in thinking and decision-making). System 2 thinking is slower and requires more effort. It is also more abstract. This rational thinking allows us to analyse the world around us and think carefully about what is happening, why it is happening, what is most likely to happen next and how we might influence the situation. System 1 is commonly referred to as “intuitive”. It has been argues System 1 developed as an adaptive reasoning mechanism based on prior experience (and survival goals) that have proven successful in the past. System 2, as “rational” evolved later with the development of language and abstract reasoning. System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, subconscious. System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious. Examples (in order of complexity) Localize the source of a specific sound Display disgust when seeing a gruesome image Solve 2+2=? Read a text on a billboard Understand simple sentences Connect the description 'quiet and structured person with an eye for details' to a specific job Examples (in order of complexity) Brace yourself before the start of a sprint Dig into your memory to recognize a sound Count the number of A's in a certain text Determine the appropriateness of a behaviour in a social setting Determine the price/quality ratio of two t-shirts Determine the validity of a complex logical reasoning Activity: Complete the Stroop Test experiment, designed by John Ridley Stroop (1930) and explain why it took longer to name the colours compared to the words. How do the findings from the stroop test support the Dual Processing Model of Thinking and Decision-Making? Activity: Using one volunteer from the class, to win a prize, pick a red bean from Bowl 1 or Bowl 2. Choose from the bowl with 1 red in 10 beans Or Choose from the bowl with 7 red beans in 100 beans Key Study: Epstein et al (1994) Intuitive and Rational Processing 79 undergraduate students (30 men and 49 women) took part in an experiment on intuitive and rational processing. A number of transparent plastic bowls contained a mixture of red and white jelly beans with differing odds of selecting a red bean. Bowl 1 = Contained 10 beans with 1 red bean (1 in 10) Bowl 2 = Contained 100 beans with 7 red beans (7 in 100) When offered an opportunity to win $1 when they drew a red jelly bean, participants frequently elected to draw from a bowl 2 that contained a greater amount, but a smaller proportion of red beans than from a bowl 1 with less red beans but better odds. When given the opportunity to lose $1 if they drew a red bean, participants still chose bowl 2 but the differences were less extreme. Participants reported that although they knew the probabilities were against them, they felt they had a better chance when there were more red beans. This demonstrates non-optimal decisions as an example of using heuristic responses. Furthermore, it has real-life application to understanding gambling behaviours even when the odds are against us. How does Epstein’s study support the Dual Processing Model? No automatic alt text available. “Epstein argues that within the context of day-to-day life, a constant interaction occurs between the two systems. Because the intuitive system is fast and automatic, guided by emotion and past experience, and requires little in terms of cognitive resources, it is especially equipped to handle the majority of information processing on a daily basis, all of which occurs outside of conscious awareness. This, in turn, allows us to focus the limited capacity of our rational system on whatever requires our conscious attention at the time.” Answer the question above in your own words using the information to help you: Why we need intuitive thinking Why we need rational thinking Why this isn’t enough Why this isn’t enough Evaluation of the Dual Process Model Strengths There is biological evidence that different types of thinking may be processed in different parts of the brain. Tests for cognitive biases are reliable in their results. Limitations The model can seem to be overly reductionist as it does not clearly explain how (or even if) these modes of thinking interact or how or why our thinking and decision making could be influenced by emotion. The definitions of System 1 and System 2 are not always clear. For example, fast processing indicates the use of System 1 rather than System 2 processes. However, just because a process is fast does not mean it is done by System 1. Experience can influence System 2 processing to go faster. How would you evaluate the above model / theory itself? How would you evaluate the above study? Theory 2: Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) A very different theory of thinking and decision making is the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) which was proposed by Ajzen. (This was developed from his earlier model known as the Theory of Reasoned Action). This suggests human action is governed by three types of considerations: 1. Behavioural beliefs (beliefs about the likely consequences of the behaviour) 2. Normative beliefs (beliefs about the normative expectations of others) 3. Control beliefs (beliefs about the presence of factors that may impede or facilitate the performance of the behaviour. As a general rule, the more favorable the attitude toward behavior and subjective norm, and the greater the perceived behavioral control, the stronger the person's intention to perform the behavior in question should be. So, according to the TPB, individuals are likely to engage in a health behavior if they believe that the behavior will lead to particular outcomes which they value, if they believe that people whose views they value think they should carry out the behavior, and if they feel that they have the necessary resources and opportunities to perform the behavior. The variables that collectively represent a person's likelihood of the behavior. 1. Attitudes - This refers to the degree to which a person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation of the behavior of interest. 2. Subjective norms - This refers to the belief about whether most people approve or disapprove of the behavior. 3. Perceived behavioral control - This refers to a person's perception of the ease or difficulty of performing the behavior of interest. Perceived behavioral control varies across situations and actions, which results in a person having varying perceptions of behavioral control depending on the situation. 4. Intention - This refers to the motivational factors that influence a given behavior where the stronger the intention to perform the behavior, the more likely the behavior will be performed. Activity: Access this website and use the interactive model to understand more about the model. Add some of the background factors and the construct of Actual Behavioural Control to the previous diagram. Azjen acknowledged the idea of perceived behavioral control came from Bandura's concept of self-efficacy. The concept of self-efficacy is rooted in Bandura's social cognitive theory. It refers to the conviction that one can successfully accomplish a task required to produce an outcome. We will look at this concept later in the sociocultural approach when we study Social Cognitive Theory. The theory of Planned Behaviour has been used successfully to predict and explain a wide range of health behaviors and intentions including smoking, drinking, gambling, health services utilization, breastfeeding, and substance use, among others. It states that behavioral achievement depends on both motivation (intention) and ability (behavioral control) Rise et al (2008) found that behavioural attitude (how someone feels about behaviour in question) and subjective norm (what others are actually doing) played a more important role than other aspects of the TPB in predicting whether smokers would actually quit. This suggests that this theory has been successfully applied into addictive behaviours. Read the following abstract on Albarracin et al (2001) study and answer the following: 1. What is the purpose of an abstract? 2. What is a meta-analysis? 3. What does N = 22,594 refer to? 4. What does r stand for? Abstract To examine how well the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior predict condom use, the authors synthesized 96 data sets (N = 22,594) containing associations between the models' key variables. Consistent with the theory of planned behavior's predictions, perceived behavioral control was related to condom use (r = 0.25) and intention and condom use (r. = .51). The strength of these associations, however, was influenced by the consideration of past behavior. Implications of these results for HIV prevention efforts are discussed. Key Study: Albarracin Albarracin et al conducted a meta-analysis of the theory on condom use which shows the practical significance of psychological research. They looked at 42 studies, with approximately 22,500 participants. To estimate the predictive validity of the TPB they combined the studies results together to see shared conclusions. Definition: Predictive validity: the extent to which performance on a test (or model) is related to later performance that the test (or model) was designed to predict. The correlation between perceived behavioural control, (such as knowing where to buy, how to use, how to inform a partner etc) and condom use was r = 0.25. This was lower than predicted by Ajzen and it could be argued that people have less control over condom use than other behaviours in other domains. However we can still see people were likely to use a condom if they had previously formed the corresponding intention. The correlation between intention to, and actual use of a condom was 0.51. Critical Analysis of TPB There are strengths and limitations of the TPB, which include the following: * Alternative explanations: A problem with this theory is it can be criticised for being over simplistic. It does not account for other variables that factor into behavioral intention and motivation, such as fear, threat, mood, or past experience. For example, aspects of learned behaviour (through observational learning) may significantly influence our decision making process. * It assumes that behavior is the result of a linear decision-making process, and does not consider that it can change over time. * Applicability: a strength of this theory is that is assumes that humans are in control of their own behaviour. Therefore it highlights that humans have the free will to choose to engage in a behaviour or not. This is in contrast to a deterministic view such as the biological perspective that could state that certain behaviours e.g. smoking are the result of an imbalance of neurotransmitters or hormones. Targeted campaigns can be developed to promote this free will in socially desirable or beneficial behaviours, such as diet, lifestyle, leisure etc * Empirical Evidence: What are the strengths of the empirical evidence for TPB What are the weaknesses of the of the empirical evidence for TPB Topic 2: Reliability of Cognitive Processes 1. Biases of Thinking and decision- making HW: Watch the TED talk by Dan Ariely on ‘Are we in control of our decision-making?’ Write down ONE example of a cognitive limitation you saw in the video: Why does Ariely consider it important to look into our cognitive limitations? According to Ariely, decisions are difficult, complex and something as humans that we’re not good at because we care about the decisions we have to make. Intuitive System 1 thinking can cause errors in thinking and decision-making. The brain uses heuristics which are mental shortcuts to help us make decisions, and as a result are vulnerable to mistakes known as cognitive biases. Ariely suggests that our “intuition is fooling us in a predictable way”, which suggests we can identify and prove that people actually use them in real-life decision making scenarios. If this is correct, we can predict what people are likely to do or think in certain situations. One cause is the tendency to focus on a limited amount of available information. We will look at the anchoring bias and framing effect as examples. Activity: Class Experiment on the anchoring bias: Tversky and Kahneman (1974) on estimating the total of a sum 1. Estimate the total of the sum given to you What did the results show you about decision-making? 1. Anchoring Bias In many situations, people make estimates by starting from an initial value, or starting point that is adjusted to yield the final answer. We call this phenomenon anchoring. Our first impression acts as an anchor or reference point to which all subsequent and related information is compared. If the anchor contains incomplete or irrelevant information we can end up making a biased decision. How does the concept of Anchoring Bias relate to System 1 Thinking in the Dual Process Model? Anchoring Bias: Tversky & Kahneman Aim: Tversky and Kahneman aimed to investigate the anchoring effect in intuitive numerical estimations. Method: Two groups of high school students estimated, within 5 seconds, a numerical expression that was written on the blackboard. One group estimated the product 1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8 Another group estimated the product 8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1 Results: To rapidly answer such questions, people perform a few steps of computation and estimate the product by extrapolation or adjustment. The median estimate for the ascending sequence was 512, while the median estimate for the descending sequence was 2,250. The correct answer is 40,320. Conclusion: Adjustments are typically insufficient, so this procedure leads to underestimation. Furthermore, because the result of the first few steps of multiplication (performed from left to right) is lower in the ascending sequence than in the descending sequence, the former estimate was judged smaller than the latter. Class Experiment on the framing bias: Tversky and Kahneman (1981) 2. Imagine that you have decided to see an event you like where admission is $10 per ticket. As you enter the theater you discover that you have lost a $10 bill. Would you still pay $10 for a ticket for the event? 3. Imagine that you have decided to see an event you like and paid the admission price of $10 per ticket. As you enter the theater you discover that you have lost the ticket. Would you pay $10 for another ticket? 2.Framing Bias Framing is a cognitive heuristic in which people tend to reach conclusions based on the 'framework' within which a situation was presented. This means that people perceive a loss as more significant and therefore more important to avoid than an equivalent gain. e.g. Tversky and Kahneman showed that 93% of PhD students registered early when a penalty fee for late registration was emphasized, with only 67% doing so when this was presented as a discount for earlier registration. This describes how presenting the same information from a different perspective can dramatically alter the decisions we make. Framing Effect: Tversky and Kahneman (1981) Aim: Investigated the effects of frames on preferences. Method: Problem a) 1831 participants were asked to imagine that they decided to see a play where admission was $10 per ticket. As they enter the theater they discover that they have lost a $10 bill. Would they still pay $10 for a ticket for the play? Results: Yes [88 percent] No [12 percent] Method: Problem b) 2001 participants were asked to imagine that they decided to see a play and paid the admission price of $10 per ticket. As they entered the theater they discovered that they have lost the ticket. The seat was not marked and the ticket cannot be recovered. Would they pay $10 for another ticket? Results: Yes [46 percent] No [54 percent] Conclusions The marked difference between the responses to problems a) and b) is an effect of psychological accounting. The purchase of a new ticket in problem b) is entered in the account that was set up by the purchase of the original ticket. In terms of this account, the expense required to see the show is $20, a cost which many of our respondents apparently found excessive. In problem a), on the other hand, the loss of $10 is not linked specifically to the ticket purchase and its effect on the decision is accordingly slight. It seems that problem a) is presented in a positive frame in comparison to problem b) which is presented in a negative frame. Examples of framing. What effect do they have? Key study On a visit to a hospital an organisational psychologist saw signs above the sinks directed at hospital staff. He thought by changing one word on the signs he might be able to increase hand washing. The hand hygiene behaviour of the staff increased as a result of how the information was presented. Here are the frames: Previous Frame: “Hand hygiene prevents you from catching diseases.” Altered Frame: “Hand hygiene prevents patients from catching diseases.” Explain why the above experiment was successful The above research study uses a field experiment. Outline why you know this: Extension: Read p 172-173 in your textbook to find out more about ‘Framing Effect’ in relation to gains and losses. 3. Confirmation Bias in thinking In the 1960s, cognitive psychologist Peter Wason conducted a number of experiments known as Wason's Rule Discovery task. He demonstrated that people have a tendency to seek information that confirms their existing beliefs. Unfortunately, this type of bias can prevent us from looking at situations objectively. It can also influence the decisions we make and can lead to poor or faulty choices. Watch the short clip on Watson’s Rule Discovery Task. What is the take-away? During an election season people tend to seek positive information that paints their favored candidates in a good light. They will also look for information that casts the opposing candidate in a negative light. By not seeking out objective facts, interpreting information in a way that only supports their existing beliefs, and only remembering details that uphold these beliefs, they often miss important information. These details might have otherwise influenced their decision on which candidate to support. Such Confirmation biases impact how people gather information, but they also influence how we interpret and recall information. For example, people who support or oppose a particular issue will not only seek information to support it, they will also interpret news stories in a way that upholds their existing ideas. Beliefs tend to persevere even after evidence for their initial formulation has been invalidated by new evidence. Key Study: Lepper et al In 1975, Lepper et al invited a group of undergraduates to take part in a study about suicide. They were presented with pairs of suicide notes. In each pair, one note had been composed by a random individual, the other by a person who had subsequently taken his own life. The students were asked to distinguish between the genuine notes and the fake ones. Some students were excellent at the task. Out of 25 pairs of notes, they correctly identified the real one 24 times. Others discovered they were hopeless. They identified the real note in only 10 instances. Though half the notes were indeed genuine, they’d been obtained from the LA County coroner’s office, the scores were fictitious. The students who’d been told they were almost always right were, on average, no more discerning than those who had been told they were mostly wrong. In the second phase of the study, the deception was revealed. The students were told that the real point of the experiment was to gauge their responses to thinking they were right or wrong. (This was also a deception.) Finally, the students were asked to estimate how many suicide notes they had actually categorized correctly, and how many they thought an average student would get right. The students in the high-score group said that they thought they had, in fact, done quite well, significantly better than the average student, even though, as they’d just been told, they had zero grounds for believing this. Conversely, those who’d been assigned to the low-score group said that they thought they had done significantly worse than the average student, a conclusion that was equally unfounded. “Once formed,” the researchers observed dryly, “impressions are remarkably perseverant.” Activity: Read the following article published by Breitbart. Explain why some readers would be angered by this, and yet other readers would be persuaded by it. Take it further: go to the following website https://www.allsides.com and enter a news topic of your choice. The site claims to remove filter bubbles so we can read the news from different perspectives, and understand each other better. Critical Thinking of Biases in Thinking & Decision-Making Use the following prompts to consider the strengths and weaknesses of research into cognitive biases. 1. How might the findings from research into cognitive biases apply to real life? 2. Are cultural and gender differences relevant to consider when understanding the influence of cognitive biases? 3. What are some of the difficulties in studying cognitive biases? 4. What theories or models can explain why cognitive biases occur? State the potential SAQs and ERQS command terms. Develop a list that could be answered with the information from the CA booklets. With a partner, using a google doc, make a plan of how you would address at least 2 SAQs and 2 ERQs. Cognitive Approach Course Overview: SAQ Command terms: ERQ Command terms: Potential Questions: References: Alabarracin., D., White, B., and Cappella, J.N. (2013). The role of attitudes in the use of tobacco, alcohol and cannabis. In Albarracin and Johnson, Handbook of Attitudes: Applications. Psychology Press, 2nd Edition Epstein, S., and Denes-Raj, V. (1994). Conflict Between Intuitive and Rational Processing: When People Behave Against Their Better Judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, pp.819-829. Retrieved from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f639/b05831f926e7566c2fb88a34d533f7a82e3c.pdf [online]. Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041593 Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., and Hubbar, M. (1975). Perserverance in self-perception and social perception - biased attributional processes in debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, pp. 880-892. Stroop, R. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6, pp.643-662. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185, pp1124-1131. Retrieved from: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~camerer/Ec101/JudgementUncertainty.pdf [online]. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211, pp. 453-458. Retrieved from: https://www.uzh.ch/cmsssl/suz/dam/jcr:ffffffff-fad3-547b-ffff-ffffe54d58af/10.18_kahneman_tversky_81.pdf [online]. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D., (1986). Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions. The Journal of Business, Vol. 59, No. 4 (2): 251-278.

Topics *
	Content

1. Cognitive processing

b.Thinking and decision-making: 
* Rational (controlled) thinking
* Intuitive (automatic) thinking

2. Reliability of cognitive processes

a. Biases in thinking and decision-making

• the contribution of research methods used in the cognitive approach to understanding (*the topics of) human behaviour

• ethical considerations in the investigation of the cognitive approach to understanding (*the topics of) human behaviour.

SAQs and ERQs can be asked on all the syllabus stated in blue.

Topic 1: Cognitive Processes
b.Thinking and decision- making

In the computer metaphor different cognitive processes are responsible for processing information at different stages. For example the function of memory is to encode, store and retrieve information. The function of thinking is to modify this information. The ability to understand other people, and express oneself to others can also be categorised under thinking. Unlike other cognitive processes, thinking produces new information. Decision-making is a cognitive process that involves selecting one possible belief or action and make a choice between the alternatives. Before we choose, we have to analyse. Therefore thinking is a prerequisite to any act of decision-making.

Theory 1: Dual process Model of Thinking

One model of thinking is the Dual Process Model. This argues that there are two systems of thinking, intuitive and rational. They are often given the nickname of “System 1 and System 2” which was coined by Stanovich and West.  System 1 is an automatic and intuitive way of thinking based on short-cuts called “heuristics.” Heuristics focus on one aspect of a complex problem and ignore others. This mode of thinking is fast and efficient, but is prone to mistakes when our assumptions do not match the reality of a specific situation. (We look at these mistakes when we consider biases in thinking and decision-making). System 2 thinking is slower and requires more effort. It is also more abstract. This rational thinking allows us to analyse the world around us and think carefully about what is happening, why it is happening, what is most likely to happen next and how we might influence the situation.

System 1 is commonly referred to as “intuitive”. It has been argues System 1 developed as an adaptive reasoning mechanism based on prior experience (and survival goals) that have proven successful in the past. System 2, as “rational” evolved later with the development of language and abstract reasoning.

System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, subconscious. 
	System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious. 
	Examples (in order of complexity)
Localize the source of a specific sound
Display disgust when seeing a gruesome image
Solve 2+2=?
Read a text on a billboard
Understand simple sentences
Connect the description 'quiet and structured person with an eye for details' to a specific job
	Examples (in order of complexity)
Brace yourself before the start of a sprint
Dig into your memory to recognize a sound
Count the number of A's in a certain text
Determine the appropriateness of a behaviour in a social setting
Determine the price/quality ratio of two t-shirts
Determine the validity of a complex logical reasoning

Activity: Complete the Stroop Test experiment, designed by John Ridley Stroop (1930) and explain why it took longer to name the colours compared to the words.

How do the findings from the stroop test support the Dual Processing Model of Thinking and Decision-Making?

Activity: Using one volunteer from the class, to win a prize, pick a red bean from Bowl 1 or Bowl 2.    
Choose from the bowl with 1 red in 10 beans
Or
Choose from the bowl with 7 red beans in 100 beans

Key Study: Epstein et al (1994) Intuitive and Rational Processing

79 undergraduate students (30 men and 49 women) took part in an experiment on intuitive and rational processing. A number of transparent plastic bowls contained a mixture of red and white jelly beans with differing odds of selecting a red bean.

Bowl 1 = Contained 10 beans with 1 red bean (1 in 10)
Bowl 2 = Contained 100 beans with 7 red beans (7 in 100)

When offered an opportunity to win $1 when they drew a red jelly bean, participants frequently elected to draw from a bowl 2 that contained a greater amount, but a smaller proportion of red beans than from a bowl 1 with less red beans but better odds. When given the opportunity to lose $1 if they drew a red bean, participants still chose bowl 2 but the differences were less extreme.

Participants reported that although they knew the probabilities were against them, they felt they had a better chance when there were more red beans. This demonstrates non-optimal decisions as an example of using heuristic responses. Furthermore, it has real-life application to understanding gambling behaviours even when the odds are against us.

How does Epstein’s study support the Dual Processing Model? No automatic alt text available.

“Epstein argues that within the context of day-to-day life, a constant interaction occurs between the two systems. Because the intuitive system is fast and automatic, guided by emotion and past experience, and requires little in terms of cognitive resources, it is especially equipped to handle the majority of information processing on a daily basis, all of which occurs outside of conscious awareness. This, in turn, allows us to focus the limited capacity of our rational system on whatever requires our conscious attention at the time.”

Answer the question above in your own words using the information to help you:

Why we need intuitive thinking
	Why we need rational thinking

Why this isn’t enough
	Why this isn’t enough

Evaluation of the Dual Process Model
Strengths
There is biological evidence that different types of thinking may be processed in different parts of the brain.
Tests for cognitive biases are reliable in their results.
Limitations
The model can seem to be overly reductionist as it does not clearly explain how (or even if) these modes of thinking interact or how or why our thinking and decision making could be influenced by emotion.
The definitions of System 1 and System 2 are not always clear. For example, fast processing indicates the use of System 1 rather than System 2 processes. However, just because a process is fast does not mean it is done by System 1. Experience can influence System 2 processing to go faster.
How would you evaluate the above model / theory itself?

How would you evaluate the above study?

Theory 2: Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

A very different theory of thinking and decision making is the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)  which was proposed by Ajzen. (This was developed from his earlier model known as the Theory of Reasoned Action). This suggests human action is governed by three types of considerations:

1. Behavioural beliefs (beliefs about the likely consequences of the behaviour)
2. Normative beliefs (beliefs about the normative expectations of others)
3. Control beliefs (beliefs about the presence of factors that may impede or facilitate the performance of the behaviour.

As a general rule, the more favorable the attitude toward behavior and subjective norm, and the greater the perceived behavioral control, the stronger the person's intention to perform the behavior in question should be.

So, according to the TPB, individuals are likely to engage in a health behavior if they believe that the behavior will lead to particular outcomes which they value, if they believe that people whose views they value think they should carry out the behavior, and if they feel that they have the necessary resources and opportunities to perform the behavior.

The variables that collectively represent a person's likelihood of the behavior.

1. Attitudes - This refers to the degree to which a person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation of the behavior of interest.
2. Subjective norms - This refers to the belief about whether most people approve or disapprove of the behavior.
3. Perceived behavioral control - This refers to a person's perception of the ease or difficulty of performing the behavior of interest. Perceived behavioral control varies across situations and actions, which results in a person having varying perceptions of behavioral control depending on the situation. 
4. Intention - This refers to the motivational factors that influence a given behavior where the stronger the intention to perform the behavior, the more likely the behavior will be performed.

Activity: Access this website and use the interactive model to understand more about the model. Add some of the background factors and the construct of Actual Behavioural Control to the previous diagram.

Azjen acknowledged the idea of perceived behavioral control came from Bandura's concept of self-efficacy. The concept of self-efficacy is rooted in Bandura's social cognitive theory. It refers to the conviction that one can successfully accomplish a task required to produce an outcome.

We will look at this concept later in the sociocultural approach when we study Social Cognitive Theory.

The theory of Planned Behaviour has been used successfully to predict and explain a wide range of health behaviors and intentions including smoking, drinking, gambling, health services utilization, breastfeeding, and substance use, among others. It states that behavioral achievement depends on both motivation (intention) and ability (behavioral control)

Rise et al (2008) found that behavioural attitude (how someone feels about behaviour in question) and subjective norm (what others are actually doing) played a more important role than other aspects of the TPB in predicting whether smokers would actually quit. This suggests that this theory has been successfully applied into addictive behaviours.

Read the following abstract on Albarracin et al (2001) study and answer the following:
1. What is the purpose of an abstract?

2. What is a meta-analysis?

3. What does N = 22,594 refer to?

4. What does r stand for?

Abstract
To examine how well the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior predict condom use, the authors synthesized 96 data sets (N = 22,594) containing associations between the models' key variables. Consistent with the theory of planned behavior's predictions, perceived behavioral control was related to condom use (r = 0.25) and intention and condom use (r. = .51). The strength of these associations, however, was influenced by the consideration of past behavior. Implications of these results for HIV prevention efforts are discussed.

Key Study: Albarracin

Albarracin et al conducted a meta-analysis of the theory on condom use which shows the practical significance of psychological research. They looked at 42 studies, with approximately 22,500 participants. To estimate the predictive validity of the TPB they combined the studies results together to see shared conclusions.

Definition: Predictive validity: the extent to which performance on a test (or model) is related to later performance that the test (or model) was designed to predict.

The correlation between perceived behavioural control, (such as knowing where to buy, how to use, how to inform a partner etc) and condom use was r = 0.25. This was lower than predicted by Ajzen and it could be argued that people have less control over condom use than other behaviours in other domains. However we can still see people were likely to use a condom if they had previously formed the corresponding intention. The correlation between intention to, and actual use of a condom was 0.51.

Critical Analysis of TPB

There are strengths and limitations of the TPB, which include the following:

* Alternative explanations: A problem with this theory is it can be criticised for being over simplistic. It does not account for other variables that factor into behavioral intention and motivation, such as fear, threat, mood, or past experience. For example, aspects of learned behaviour (through observational learning) may significantly influence our decision making process.

* It assumes that behavior is the result of a linear decision-making process, and does not consider that it can change over time.

* Applicability: a strength of this theory is that is assumes that humans are in control of their own behaviour. Therefore it highlights that humans have the free will to choose to engage in a behaviour or not. This is in contrast to a deterministic view such as the biological perspective that could state that certain behaviours e.g. smoking are the result of an imbalance of neurotransmitters or hormones. Targeted campaigns can be developed to promote this free will in socially desirable or beneficial behaviours, such as diet, lifestyle, leisure etc

* Empirical Evidence:

What are the strengths of the empirical evidence for TPB
	What are the weaknesses of the of the empirical evidence for TPB

Topic 2: Reliability of Cognitive Processes
1. Biases of Thinking and decision- making

HW: Watch the TED talk by Dan Ariely on ‘Are we in control of our decision-making?’  
Write down ONE example of a cognitive limitation you saw in the video:

Why does Ariely consider it important to look into our cognitive limitations?

According to Ariely, decisions are difficult, complex and something as humans that we’re not good at because we care about the decisions we have to make. Intuitive System 1 thinking can cause errors in thinking and decision-making. The brain uses heuristics which are mental shortcuts to help us make decisions, and as a result are vulnerable to mistakes known as cognitive biases. Ariely suggests that our “intuition is fooling us in a predictable way”, which suggests we can identify and prove that people actually use them in real-life decision making scenarios. If this is correct, we can predict what people are likely to do or think in certain situations.

One cause is the tendency to focus on a limited amount of available information. We will look at the anchoring bias and framing effect as examples.

Activity: Class Experiment on the anchoring bias: Tversky and Kahneman (1974) on estimating the total of a sum

1. Estimate the total of the sum given to you

What did the results show you about decision-making?

1. Anchoring Bias  
In many situations, people make estimates by starting from an initial value, or starting point that is adjusted to yield the final answer. We call this phenomenon anchoring. Our first impression acts as an anchor or reference point to which all subsequent and related information is compared. If the anchor contains incomplete or irrelevant information we can end up making a biased decision.

How does the concept of Anchoring Bias relate to System 1 Thinking in the Dual Process Model?

Anchoring Bias: Tversky & Kahneman
Aim:  Tversky and Kahneman aimed to investigate the anchoring effect in intuitive numerical estimations. 
Method: Two groups of high school students estimated, within 5 seconds, a numerical expression that was written on the blackboard.
One group estimated the product  1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8
Another group estimated the product 8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1
Results: To rapidly answer such questions, people perform a few steps of computation and estimate the product by extrapolation or adjustment. The median estimate for the ascending sequence was 512, while the median estimate for the descending sequence was 2,250. 
The correct answer is 40,320.
Conclusion: Adjustments are typically insufficient, so this procedure leads to underestimation. Furthermore, because the result of the first few steps of multiplication (performed from left to right) is lower in the ascending sequence than in the descending sequence, the former estimate was judged smaller than the latter.

Class Experiment on the framing bias: Tversky and Kahneman (1981)

2. Imagine that you have decided to see an event you like where admission is $10 per ticket. As you enter the theater you discover that you have lost a $10 bill. Would you still pay $10 for a ticket for the event?
   3. Imagine that you have decided to see an event you like and paid the admission price of $10 per ticket. As you enter the theater you discover that you have lost the ticket. Would you pay $10 for another ticket?

2.Framing Bias
Framing is a cognitive heuristic in which people tend to reach conclusions based on the 'framework' within which a situation was presented. This means that people perceive a loss as more significant and therefore more important to avoid than an equivalent gain. e.g. Tversky and Kahneman showed that 93% of PhD students registered early when a penalty fee for late registration was emphasized, with only 67% doing so when this was presented as a discount for earlier registration. This describes how presenting the same information from a different perspective can dramatically alter the decisions we make.

Framing Effect: Tversky and Kahneman (1981)  
Aim:  Investigated the effects of frames on preferences.
Method: Problem a) 1831 participants were asked to imagine that they decided to see a play where admission was $10 per ticket. As they enter the theater they discover that they have lost a $10 bill. Would they still pay $10 for a ticket for the play? 
Results: Yes [88 percent] No [12 percent] 
Method: Problem b) 2001 participants were asked to imagine that they decided to see a play and paid the admission price of $10 per ticket. As they entered the theater they discovered that they have lost the ticket. The seat was not marked and the ticket cannot be recovered. Would they pay $10 for another ticket? 
Results: Yes [46 percent] No [54 percent] 
Conclusions The marked difference between the responses to problems a) and b) is an effect of psychological accounting. The purchase of a new ticket in problem b) is entered in the account that was set up by the purchase of the original ticket. In terms of this account, the expense required to see the show is $20, a cost which many of our respondents apparently found excessive. In problem a), on the other hand, the loss of $10 is not linked specifically to the ticket purchase and its effect on the decision is accordingly slight. It seems that problem a) is presented in a positive frame in comparison to problem b) which is presented in a negative frame.

Examples of framing. What effect do they have?

Key study
On a visit to a hospital an organisational psychologist saw signs above the sinks directed at hospital staff.  He thought by changing one word on the signs he might be able to increase hand washing.  The hand hygiene behaviour of the staff increased as a result of how the information was presented. Here are the frames:

Previous Frame: “Hand hygiene prevents you from catching diseases.” 
Altered Frame: “Hand hygiene prevents patients from catching diseases.”  
Explain why the above experiment was successful

The above research study uses a field experiment. Outline why you know this:

Extension: Read p 172-173 in your textbook to find out more about ‘Framing Effect’ in relation to gains and losses.

3. Confirmation Bias in thinking

In the 1960s, cognitive psychologist Peter Wason conducted a number of experiments known as Wason's Rule Discovery task. He demonstrated that people have a tendency to seek information that confirms their existing beliefs. Unfortunately, this type of bias can prevent us from looking at situations objectively. It can also influence the decisions we make and can lead to poor or faulty choices.

Watch the short clip on Watson’s Rule Discovery Task. What is the take-away?

During an election season people tend to seek positive information that paints their favored candidates in a good light. They will also look for information that casts the opposing candidate in a negative light. By not seeking out objective facts, interpreting information in a way that only supports their existing beliefs, and only remembering details that uphold these beliefs, they often miss important information. These details might have otherwise influenced their decision on which candidate to support.

Such Confirmation biases impact how people gather information, but they also influence how we interpret and recall information. For example, people who support or oppose a particular issue will not only seek information to support it, they will also interpret news stories in a way that upholds their existing ideas. Beliefs tend to persevere even after evidence for their initial formulation has been invalidated by new evidence.

Key Study: Lepper et al
In 1975, Lepper et al invited a group of undergraduates to take part in a study about suicide. They were presented with pairs of suicide notes. In each pair, one note had been composed by a random individual, the other by a person who had subsequently taken his own life. The students were asked to distinguish between the genuine notes and the fake ones.

Some students were excellent at the task. Out of 25 pairs of notes, they correctly identified the real one 24 times. Others discovered they were hopeless. They identified the real note in only 10 instances.

Though half the notes were indeed genuine, they’d been obtained from the LA County coroner’s office, the scores were fictitious. The students who’d been told they were almost always right were, on average, no more discerning than those who had been told they were mostly wrong.

In the second phase of the study, the deception was revealed. The students were told that the real point of the experiment was to gauge their responses to thinking they were right or wrong. (This was also a deception.) Finally, the students were asked to estimate how many suicide notes they had actually categorized correctly, and how many they thought an average student would get right. The students in the high-score group said that they thought they had, in fact, done quite well, significantly better than the average student, even though, as they’d just been told, they had zero grounds for believing this. Conversely, those who’d been assigned to the low-score group said that they thought they had done significantly worse than the average student, a conclusion that was equally unfounded.

“Once formed,” the researchers observed dryly, “impressions are remarkably perseverant.”

Activity: Read the following article published by Breitbart. Explain why some readers would be angered by this, and yet other readers would be persuaded by it.

Take it further: go to the following website https://www.allsides.com and enter a news topic of your choice.    
The site  claims to remove filter bubbles so we can read the news from different perspectives, and understand each other better.

Critical Thinking of Biases in Thinking & Decision-Making

Use the following prompts to consider the strengths and weaknesses of research into cognitive biases.

1. How might the findings from research into cognitive biases apply to real life?

2. Are cultural and gender differences relevant to consider when understanding the influence of cognitive biases?

3. What are some of the difficulties in studying cognitive biases?

4. What theories or models can explain why cognitive biases occur?

State the potential SAQs and ERQS command terms. Develop a list that could be answered with the information from the CA booklets. With a partner, using a google doc, make a plan of how you would address at least 2 SAQs and 2 ERQs.  
Cognitive Approach Course Overview:

SAQ Command terms:

ERQ Command terms:

Potential Questions:

References:

Alabarracin., D., White, B., and Cappella, J.N. (2013). The role of attitudes in the use of tobacco, alcohol and cannabis. In Albarracin and Johnson, Handbook of Attitudes: Applications. Psychology Press, 2nd Edition

Epstein, S., and Denes-Raj, V. (1994). Conflict Between Intuitive and Rational Processing: When People Behave Against Their Better Judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, pp.819-829. Retrieved from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f639/b05831f926e7566c2fb88a34d533f7a82e3c.pdf [online].

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041593

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., and Hubbar, M. (1975). Perserverance in self-perception and social perception - biased attributional processes in debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, pp. 880-892.

Stroop, R. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6, pp.643-662.

Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185, pp1124-1131. Retrieved from: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~camerer/Ec101/JudgementUncertainty.pdf [online].

Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211, pp. 453-458. Retrieved from: https://www.uzh.ch/cmsssl/suz/dam/jcr:ffffffff-fad3-547b-ffff-ffffe54d58af/10.18_kahneman_tversky_81.pdf
[online].

Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D., (1986). Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions. The Journal of Business, Vol. 59, No. 4 (2): 251-278.

Transcript for:Understanding Cognitive Processing and Decision-Making

Transcript for:
Understanding Cognitive Processing and Decision-Making