Exploring Thinking and Decision-Making Models

what is thinking and decision making? * thinking and decision-making are interrelated cognitive processes — the act of thinking is required to make a decision * thinking and decision-making can be studied as separate concepts * But any psychological theories about thinking are. Also theories about decision-making, because the two concepts are so intertwined. Below, is the stanovich and West(2000) model of thinking. thinking system 1 * Fast * Automatic * Effortless * Intuitive thinking * often employees Heuristics- that is a ‘rule’ used to make decisions or form judgements(hubristic are mental shortcuts that involve focusing on one aspect of a complex problem and ignoring others) * This ‘fast’ mode of thinking allows for efficient processing of the often complex world around us * This system of thinking is often prone to errors when our assumptions do not match the reality of the situation * It is known to give a sense of satisfaction and confidence and we are certain(without checking) that our responses are correct. thinking system 2 * Slow * Controlled * Effortful * Rational thinking * Is a slower conscious, and rational mode of thinking, and is assumed to require more effort to carry out /complete * Starts by thinking carefully about all of the possible ways we could interpret a situation gradually eliminates possibilities based on sensory evidence until we arrive at a solution * Rational thinking allows us ti 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 * This mode of thinking is less likely to create feeling of certitude and confidence Wason task 1968 (in essays mention this before the studies) the task was made to text the dual process model of thinking and decision-making to investigate the role of intuitive thinking and rational thinking(system 1 &2) in decision-making. The task involves sets of cards which when flipped over by the participant must fulfil a certain rule. The task is used to undertsand what system is being used and how that affects the accuracy of their answers. Study 1: Griggs and Cox (1982) Aim: to investigate whether matching bias(system of thinking) was less commonly used to solve the wason selection task when the task became increasingly personally relevant. Procedure: * Sample: 144 undergraduate students randomly allocated to one of six groups in order to counterbalance. * Each group was given a workbook with three problems * They were asked which cards to turn over in order to prove if the statements/rules for each task were true. * Abstract task: “if a card has an A on one side then it has a 3 on the other side” * Intermediate task: “ if a person in wearing blue then the person must be over 19 years old * Memory cueing task: “ if a person is drinking beer then the person must be over 18 years old”the participant had to flip over the cards which Would fulfil these statements. Result: * Abstract task:(3%) solved the task correctly * intermediate task:(43%) solved the task correctly * Memory cueing task: (60%) solved the task correctly They found that the most abstract and less relevant the task, the more likely that cognitive biases would be used to solve the problem Conclusion: * the majority of participants had chosen the cards without reasoning but rather as intuition or ‘impression’ as mentioned earlier as a characteristic of system 1 thinking. It seems that the participants we influenced by matching bias, and had employed system 1 to answer the question. Evaluation: * The Wason selection task is highly artificial and not an everyday task we do in real life. We do not pick cards nor do we make decisions in isolation in real life. Therefore reducing ecological validity so findings from the Wason selection task that decision making can be affected by personal bias is not true for all situations in decision making in real life as there are many factors that affect decisions made such as people surrounding you or the importance of that decision. * They used an independent measures design which meant that participants were already familiar with what was expected of them and continuously improved as they completed each task. This may imply that participants were not doing better in tasks with more personal relevance because they were using system 2, but rather, because they were displaying order effect or demand characteristics. Link: The study provided evidence for the different systems involved in thinking and decision making through relating the systems used to the relevance of the tasks in participmnats everyday lives. The study found that as the tasks become more increasingly relevant particionats were able to employ more system 2 thinking(using logican and prior knowledge) incomparison to the abstract task which majority used system 1 thinking(intuaition and speed). Goel et al (2000): biologi al evidence Aim: to provide biological basis of how different types of memory processing take place in different parts of the brain Biological evidence supports what we see in the Wason Selection Task (See Wason's study below) by showing that different types of processing may be located in different parts of the brain. Procedure: * Participants (11)were asked to carry out a logic task similar to the Wason (1986) * In some cases, the task was abstract in nature (eg, an odd number and a matching colour) * In contrast, some of the tasks were ‘concrete’ in nature (eg, drinking beer and under 18) * They had to decide on the choices while in an fMRI machine Although there were many common areas of the brain that were active in solving the problems that preceeded making a decision, there was a clear difference in the are of the brain that was working * had participants carry out a logic task similar to the Wason's. In some cases, the task was abstract in nature (for example, an odd number and a matching colour). In contrast, some of the tasks were "concrete" in nature (for example, drinking beer and under 18). The researchers had the participants decide on the correct choices while in an fMRI. Result: * When the task was abstract, the parietal lobe was active; when the task was concrete, the left hemisphere temporal lobe was active. * supports system 1 and system 2 thinking because it suggests that the two thinking methods are carried out by two separate areas of the brain. Conclusion: The parietal lobe is often associated with spatial processing. This seems to indicate that the brain processes these two types of information differently and thus may be seen as support for the model. When the task is concrete, we have more experience and knowledge, which may be a reson for this being a simpler taks, even though the tasks are principally the same. Evaluation Goel et al used a fMRI scanner in order to see the brain activity in different areas of the brain when completing abstract tasks and more concrete tasks. Due to the use of technology, the areas of the brain that showed high levels of activity were most likely to link to what areas of the brain are used when using System 1 and System 2. This means that the study has high levels of validity as the results of the experiment most likely apply to the uses of parietal lobe and temporal lobe when performing solving various different logic puzzles. Since this experiment was a lab experiment, this means that the tasks that they were performing lack mundane realism. The logic puzzles may not be something that people may be faced with in every life. This means that the findings of the study may not be applicable to what areas of the brain are used when working out real life problems. This is because in the real world, questions may not be split between abstract tasks and concrete tasks. Therefore, the areas of the brain like the parietal lobe and temporal lobe may not be an accurate biological explanation for the differences between system 1 and system 2. It has a lack of ecological validity. The abstract task is not a usual activity in everyday life, as people would not try to show that one side is a number and the other is a color. This means that the results may not explain why the parietal lobe was active during the thinking process, thus they cannot conclude that system 2 thinking took place. Link: The study provides biological support for the system 1&2 thinking and decision making theory. The study found that when the task were concrete and more rooted in nature participants ahd increased activity in their temporal lobe, which in comparison to the spatial and tactical prccsessing of the pariertal lobe whick is a more risky methods to find solutions, is responsible for using prior knowledge and experience to deduce the most beneficial and probable solutions to solv.e. This highlights that the brain processes these two trypes of infromation(abstract and concrete) differently. LAQ Theory: → explain by thinking and decision making are studied together → dual processing model outline 1. Systems of thinking 2. How this influences our daily lives → why it is important to study thinking and decision making Study 1: Griggs and Cox → shows how system one matching bias leads to ‘intuitive’ thinking and less rational thought. Highlighting how our quick decisions and answers to problems may be less accurate and subject to biases which skew our perception → May be difficult to apply in real life as often situations in our lives are more complex and may require or lead us to use a combination of system1&2 think and processes when making important decisions. → highlights the distinction in observable behaviour between the two systems of thinking → abstract = system 1→ show by increased confidence and speed when deciding. → study evaluation Topic sentence 2: another way in which we can see the dual processing model is by researching/ discovering the neural basis of the systems of thinking and whether we can determine how our biology can influence our cognitive processes of thinking and decision-making. → system 1 thinking liked with the parietal lobe known for spatial thinking which means that less rational and more intuitive thinking occurs when we use that part of the brain and can result in system 1 thinking → allows us to consider how our environment or situation may influence the selection our the system we use to make decisions. → study evaluation

Study 1: Griggs and Cox (1982)
	Aim: to investigate whether matching bias(system of thinking) was less commonly used to solve the wason selection task when the task became increasingly personally relevant. 
Procedure: 
* Sample: 144 undergraduate students randomly allocated to one of six groups in order to counterbalance.
* Each group was given a workbook with three problems
* They were asked which cards to turn over in order to prove if the  statements/rules for each task were true.
* Abstract task: “if a card has an A on one side then it has a 3 on the other side”
* Intermediate task: “ if a person in wearing blue then the person must be over 19 years old
* Memory cueing task: “ if a person is drinking beer then the person must be over 18 years old”the participant had to flip over the cards which Would fulfil these statements.
Result:
* Abstract task:(3%) solved the task correctly
* intermediate task:(43%) solved the task correctly
* Memory cueing task: (60%) solved the task correctly
     They found that the most abstract and less relevant the task, the more likely that cognitive  biases would be used to solve the problem

Conclusion:
* the majority of participants had chosen the cards without reasoning but rather as intuition or ‘impression’ as mentioned earlier as a characteristic of system 1 thinking. It seems that the participants we influenced by matching bias, and had employed system 1 to answer the question.

Evaluation: 
	*  The Wason selection task is highly artificial and not an everyday task we do in real life. We do not pick cards nor do we make decisions in isolation in real life. Therefore reducing ecological validity so findings from the Wason selection task that decision making can be affected by personal bias is not true for all situations in decision making in real life as there are many factors that affect decisions made such as people surrounding you or the importance of that decision.
* They used an independent measures design which meant that participants were already familiar with what was expected of them and continuously improved as they completed each task. This may imply that participants were not doing better in tasks with more personal relevance because they were using system 2, but rather, because they were displaying order effect or demand characteristics.
	Link: 
	The study provided evidence for the different systems involved in thinking and decision making through relating the systems used to the relevance of the tasks in participmnats everyday lives. The study found that as the tasks become more increasingly relevant particionats were able to employ more system 2 thinking(using logican and prior knowledge) incomparison to the  abstract task which majority used system 1 thinking(intuaition and speed). 
	Goel et al (2000): biologi al evidence
	Aim: to provide biological basis of how different types of memory processing take place in different parts of the brain
Biological evidence supports what we see in the Wason Selection Task (See Wason's study below) by showing that different types of processing may be located in different parts of the brain. 
Procedure: 
* Participants (11)were asked to carry out a logic task similar to the Wason (1986) 
* In some cases, the task was abstract in nature (eg, an odd number and a matching colour) 
* In contrast, some of the tasks were ‘concrete’ in nature (eg, drinking beer and under 18) 
* They had to decide on the choices while in an fMRI machine Although there were many common areas of the brain that were active in solving the problems that preceeded making a decision, there was a clear difference in the are of the brain that was working
* had participants carry out a logic task similar to the Wason's. In some cases, the task was abstract in nature (for example, an odd number and a matching colour). In contrast, some of the tasks were "concrete" in nature (for example, drinking beer and under 18). The researchers had the participants decide on the correct choices while in an fMRI. 
Result:
* When the task was abstract, the parietal lobe was active; when the task was concrete, the left hemisphere temporal lobe was active. 
* supports system 1 and system 2 thinking because it suggests that the two thinking methods are carried out by two separate areas of the brain.

Conclusion: 
The parietal lobe is often associated with spatial processing. This seems to indicate that the brain processes these two types of information differently and thus may be seen as support for the model. When the task is concrete, we have more experience and knowledge, which may be a reson for this being a simpler taks, even though the tasks are principally the same.

Evaluation 
	Goel et al used a fMRI scanner in order to see the brain activity in different areas of the brain when completing abstract tasks and more concrete tasks. Due to the use of technology, the areas of the brain that showed high levels of activity were most likely to link to what areas of the brain are used when using System 1 and System 2. This means that the study has high levels of validity as the results of the experiment most likely apply to the uses of parietal lobe and temporal lobe when performing solving various different logic puzzles.

Since this experiment was a lab experiment, this means that the tasks that they were performing lack mundane realism. The logic puzzles may not be something that people may be faced with in every life. This means that the findings of the study may not be applicable to what areas of the brain are used when working out real life problems. This is because in the real world, questions may not be split between abstract tasks and concrete tasks. Therefore, the areas of the brain like the parietal lobe and temporal lobe may not be an accurate biological explanation for the differences between system 1 and system 2.

It has a lack of ecological validity. The abstract task is not a usual activity in everyday life, as people would not try to show that one side is a number and the other is a color. This means that the results may not explain why the parietal lobe was active during the thinking process, thus they cannot conclude that system 2 thinking took place.
	Link: 
	The study provides biological support for the system 1&2 thinking and decision making theory. The study found that when the task were concrete and more rooted in nature participants ahd increased activity in their temporal lobe, which in comparison to the spatial and tactical prccsessing of the pariertal lobe whick is a more risky methods to find solutions, is responsible for using prior knowledge and experience to deduce the most beneficial and probable solutions to solv.e. This highlights that the brain processes these two trypes of infromation(abstract and concrete) differently.
	LAQ
	Theory: 
→ explain by thinking and decision making are studied together 
→ dual processing model outline
1. Systems of thinking 
2. How this influences our daily lives
     → why it is important to study thinking and decision making

Study 1: Griggs and Cox 
→ shows how system one matching bias leads to ‘intuitive’ thinking and less rational thought. Highlighting how our quick decisions and answers to problems may be less accurate and subject to biases which skew our perception
→ May be difficult to apply in real life as often situations in our lives are more complex and may require or lead us to use a combination of system1&2 think and processes when making important decisions.
→ highlights the distinction in observable behaviour between the two systems of thinking → abstract = system 1→ show by increased confidence and speed when deciding. 
→ study evaluation

Topic sentence 2: another way in which we can see the dual processing model is by researching/ discovering the neural basis of the systems of thinking and whether we can determine how our biology can influence our cognitive processes of thinking and decision-making. 
→ system 1 thinking liked with the parietal lobe known for spatial thinking which means that less rational and more intuitive thinking occurs when we use that part of the brain and can result in system 1 thinking 
→ allows us to consider how our environment or situation may influence the selection our the system we use to make decisions. 
→ study evaluation

Transcript for:Exploring Thinking and Decision-Making Models

Transcript for:
Exploring Thinking and Decision-Making Models