Chapter 9: Knowledge

Definitional approach to categorization:

o Category has a definition that must be met to be in the category
o Problem?
Not all members of category have same features (not same
definition)
Instead family resemblance
o things in a particular category resemble one another
Not as rigid as definitional approach; allows for variation
o Proposed by Wittgenstein
Prototype approach to categorization:
o membership in category determined by comparing to prototype
Prototype = typical member of category
Elinor Rosch: prototype = average representation of
category members
o Prototypicality = how close to the prototype you
are
High protoypicality: very similar to prototype
Prototypical objects have high family resemblance
Statements about prototypical objects verified rapidly
o Edward Smith: sentence verification technique
High prototypicality faster response time
Typicality Effect: ability to judge highly prototypical
objects more rapidly
o Prototypical objects named first
o Prototypical objects more affected by priming
Prime facilitates response to a stimulus bc draws up prototype in
subjects mind, allowing for quicker recognition of prototypical
objects
Exemplar approach to categorization
o Compare object to an exemplar (example object youve encountered
before)
USE BOTH exemplar and prototype

Levels of categories = hierarchical organization

o Global (superordinate) = furniture > Basic (ordinate) = table > Specific
(subordinate) = kitchen table
o Basic level categories
Basic to global lvl = large loss in info
Basic to specific lvl = small gain in info
o Knowledge affects categorization:
More knowledge, more specific label

Semantic network approach: concepts arranged in networks

Collins & Quillians hierarchical model

Concepts linked; follow a hierarchy
Criticism: doesnt explain typicality effect
Cognitive economy: storing shared properties at higher node
level
Exceptions stored at lower level
Farther person has to go in hierarchy = longer reaction time
Spreading activation: activity spreading out along all links
connected to particular node of access into network priming
effect
Myer & Schvaneveldt: lexical decision task
Read stimuli, decide if word or nonword
Rxn time faster when 2 words associated
o Collins & Loftus hierarchical model
Personal experience affects networks!
Concepts more closely related connected by shorter lines
Spacing depends on experience & knowledge of concepts
Assessment of Semantic Network Theories:
o Explanatory power: can theory explain a particular result?
o Predictive power: can theory predict results of a particular experiment?
o Falsifiability: theory/part of theory can potentially be shown to be
wrong
o Generations of experiments: theory stimulates research to improve and
test it
o Problems with Collins & Loftus model:
Too general so hard to falsify
o

Representations of Categories in Brain

o Specific or distributed activity?
Different categories of objects activate different areas of brain
FFA fusiform face area reacts to faces
PPA parahippocampal place area reacts to houses, rooms,
places
Conclusion: specific and distributed
o Category info in single neurons
Freedman: monkey training to classify stimuli dog/cat
Recorded from neurons during classification of stimuli
Different neuron responds to different aspects of stimulus
o IT inferotemporal cortex used in initial stimulation
o PF prefrontal cortex used in delay (memory)
o Neuropsychology of categories
Patients w/ category-specific knowledge impairment: patient has
trouble recognizing objects in one category
Have trouble naming objects & listing properties of
category

Brain Scanning and categories

Different responses to living/nonliving things
Living things activate different area than nonliving things

Categorization in infants
o Familiarization/novelty preference procedure:
Familiarization: infant exposed to different exemplars
Preference test: infant sees new exemplar from familiarized
category
If infant looks longer at dog (new exemplar) than at cat
(familiarized category), inferred dog in different category
o Infants > 2 months have global category
o 3-4 months: basic category
o 6-7 months: specific category

Chapter 10: Visual Imagery

Visual imagery = seeing in the absence of a visual stimulus (visualize)

o Type of mental imagery: sensing something in mind without a stimulus
o Imagery useful to thinking
Imagery in History of Psychology
o Wundt: consciousness = sensations, feelings, images
o Imageless Thought Debate:
Thought is impossible w/o image
Vs. thought is possible w/o image
o Behaviorists: no imagery
Imagery and Cognitive Revolution of 1950s
o Revolution bc cognitive psychologists discovered how to measure
behavior infer mental processes
o Alan Paivio: paired-associate learning
Study w/ word pairs
Stimulus: first word
Task: remember 2nd word
Results:
Better recall for concrete nouns > abstract nouns =
conceptual peg hypothesis
o Concrete nouns create images other words can
hang onto
o Roger Shepard: mental chronometry
Measure of response time
Imagery and Perception share same mechanisms?
o Imagery shares many properties w/ perception
Involve spatial representation of stimulus

Stephen Kosslyn: mental scanning

o Participants memorized picture of boat and create
mental image of it (scanning)
o Focus on one part of boat (ex. Anchor) and then
look for another part of boat (ex. Motor)
o Results:
Farther from anchor = longer rxn time
LIKE perception = spatial representation
Zenon Pylyshyn: imagery debate
o Imagery based on spatial mechanisms or language
mechanisms (propositional mechanisms)
Imagery propositional or spatial?
Pylyshyn: language representation (not spatial) of imagery
Spatial experience of mental imagery = epiphenomenon
(accompanies real mechanism but ISNT mechanism)
Propositional representation: relationships represented by
abstract symbols/words
o Vs. depictive representation = realistic picture
Tacit knowledge explanation: unconscious use of realworld knowledge in making judgments
o Accounts for longer distance = longer rxn time
You know it takes longer, so incorporate into
response
Imagery vs perception comparison
Size in visual field
Larger mental image: quicker response in identifying
features
Mental walk task: imagine walking toward mental image
o Had to walk closer to mental image for small
animals than for larger animals to experience
overflow (image filled visual field w/ hazy edges)
Interactions of imagery & perception
Cheves Perky projection screen experiment
o Task: project visual image onto screen
o Perky projected real image onto screen
o Results: participant image descriptions matched
real image

Imagery and brain

o Imagery neurons in brain:
Neurons respond to some objects but not to others (studies of
severe epileptic patients)
Neuron fires for perception of baseball AND visual image
of baseball
Imagery neurons: respond to perception & imagining it

Brain imaging:
PET & fMRI
Perception & imagery activate visual cortex
Activate most of same areas (except for in back of brain)
Ex) areas associated w/ hearing & touch deactivated
o Visual imaging = delicate process; deactivation of
irrelevant areas = easier visual images
Transcranial magnetic stimulation:
Pylyshyn: brain activity also an epiphenomenon
Kosslyn: transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) = temporary
disruption f(x) of brain area w/ magnetic field
TMS of visual cortex slower rxn in visual imagery &
perception task
i.e. NOT epiphenomenon
Neuropsychological case studies:
Removing part of visual cortex decreases image size
M.G.S. remove right occipital lobe for severe epilepsy
Pre-operation & post-operation: mental walk task
o Post-operation = smaller visual field
o Visual cortex important to visual imagery!
Perceptual problems accompanied by imagery problems
Unable to see color unable to imagine color
Parietal lobe damage unilateral neglect: ignore objects
on one half of visual field
o Neglect same half of visual field in imagery
Dissociations b/w imagery & perception
Dissociation: one f(x) present, other not
R.M. damage to occipital & parietal lobes
o Could recognize & accurately draw objects before
him
o Unable to draw from memory (requires imagery)
C.K. car accident
o Visual agnosia: inability to visually recognize
objects
o Could draw from memory (requires imagery)
Perception & imagery overlap, but not governed by identically
same processes
Perception = bottom-up process
Imagery = top-down process

Using imagery to improve memory

o imagery improves memory
creates organized locations where memories for specific items
can be placed

method of loci: things to be remembered have unique locations in

mental space
associating images w/ words
o pegword technique: associate things to be remembered w/ concrete
words
Mental simulation = spatial representation
Rule-based approach = propositional representation
o

Chapter 12: Problem Solving

What is a problem?
o Problem: an obstacle b/w a present state & not immediately obvious
how to get around obstacle
Well-defined problem: has a correct answer
Ill-defined problems: no one correct answer
Gestalt approach to problem solving: Representation & restructuring
o Gestalt: mental representation of problem; reorganization of problem
for solving
o Representation influences solving!
o Restructuring: changing mental representation of problem
Associated w/
o Insight: sudden realization of solution!
Janet Metcalfe & David Wiebe: insight vs noninsight problems
Hypothesis: insight problem = no idea how close to
solution ; noninsight problem = aware how close to
solution (methodical approach)
Results confirmed hypothesis
o Obstacles to problem solving:
Fixation: tendency to focus on a specific characteristic that
detracts from solution
Functional fixedness/blindness: restricting use of an object to its
familiar f(x)s
Ex) need a pillow for sleeping but only have jacket; dont
use jacket as pillow bc jacket for wearing
Karl Duncker: Candle Problem (how to mount candle onto
corkboard w/o dripping wax on floor) demonstrated
functional blindness
Maier: Two String Problem (tie 2 strings together hanging
from ceiling too far apart to do simply) demonstrated
functional blindness
Mental set: preconceived notion about how to approach a
problem
Information-Processing approach to problem solving:
o Problem solving analogous to a search

Newell & Simons approach:

Problem broken down into three states:
Initial state: conditions @ problem beginning
Intermediate state: conditions b/w initial state & goal
state
o Determined by operators (actions taking problem
from one state to another)
Goal state: solution of problem
Problem solving = sequences of choices as steps
Problem space = initial state, goal state, ALL possible
intermediate states
Must search problem space to find solution
Means-end-analysis = possible search strategy
Goal: reduce difference b/w initial & goal states
o Achieved by creating subgoals (intermediate states
closer to goal)
Importance of how problem is stated: can affect problem difficulty
Think-aloud technique (verbalize thoughts as they occur)
proves Gestalt restructuring
Analogy: process of noticing connections b/w similar problems
and applying solution for one problem to other

Use of analogies to solve problems: analogical problem solving

o Analogical transfer: transfer of solution from one problem (source
problem/source story) to another (target problem)
Aided by making surface & structural features more similar
o Duncker radiation problem:
Gestalt representation & restructuring
How to destroy tumor?
Radiation too weak: wont kill
Radiation too strong: kill everything
Solution: bombard w/ multiple rays (unexpected bc
question framed to make it seem like only one ray could
be used)
o Process of analogical approach:
1. Notice analogous relationship b/w problems
2. Mapping the correspondence b/w problems (identify
similarities)
Steps 1 & 2 inhibited by fixation on surface features
(specific elements unique to each problem)
3. Applying mapping to generate parallel solution to target
problem
o Varying similarity of structural features
Structural features: underlying principle governing solution
Analogical encoding: compare two cases illustrating a principle
o To help notice structural similarities

BUT analogical paradox: psych study participants focus on surface features

whereas in real world focus on structural features
o Solution: In vivo problem-solving research = observing real-world
scenarios

How experts solve problems

o Expert = person extremely knowledgeable/skilled in a field
Fair better @ solving problems w/in particular field
o Expert vs. novice problem-solving
Experts possess more knowledge about their field
Experts knowledge organized differently from novices
Emphasizes structural features over surface features
Experts spend more time analyzing problems
Spend time understanding problem (vs just trying to solve
it)

Creative problem solving

o Creativity: innovative thinking, generating novel ideas, making new
connection b/w existing ideas to create something new
Involves insight
Associated w/
o Divergent thinking: open-ended thinking involving large number of
potential solutions w/ no correct answer
o Convergent thinking: thinking that leads to a correct answer
Finke: creative cognition teach creativity

High memory capacity on problem solving:

o High memory capacity USUALLY = better problem solving
o High pressure conditions:
No effect on low memory capacity
Deleterious effect on high memory capacity performance

Chapter 13: Reasoning and Decision Making

Decision = choice between alternatives

Reasoning = process of drawing conclusions from information
o Decisions often outcome of reasoning!
o Deductive reasoning: involves syllogisms (sequences of statements)
Definite conclusions
o Inductive reasoning: arrive @ PROBABLY true conclusions w/ evidence
Probable conclusions

Deductive Reasoning
o Aristotle = father of deductive reasoning
Introduced syllogism

Syllogism:
Two premises
Conclusion
Categorical syllogism: describes relation b/w 2 categories w/ all,
no, some
Conditional syllogism: first premise in form: if then
Common in everyday life
P phrase (if) = antecedent
q phrase (then) = consequent
Valid conditional syllogisms:
o Affirming antecedent
o Denying consequent
Invalid conditional syllogisms:
o Denying antecedent
o Affirming consequent
Validity: syllogism valid when conclusion follows logically from two
premises
Syllogism can be valid, but not necessarily true
Conditional reasoning: Wason 4-Card Problem
People better @ judging validity w/ real-world examples (not
abstract symbols)
4-Card Problem: letter on 1 side, # on other
How many cards needed to turn over to test a rule?
Results: participants confirmed rule BUT didnt disconfirm
rule
o i.e. participants failed @ falsification principle:
necessary to look for situations falsifying rule to
test it
Role of regulations in Wason Task
Are there general reasoning mechanisms responsible for
improved performance when task is real-world examples?
Linking beer to regulations about drinking age makes
it easier to realize you have to test falsification
Role of permissions in Wason Task
Patricia Cheng & Keith Holyoak: proposed pragmatic
reasoning schema = way of thinking about cause & effect;
learned in life
o Ex) permission schema: if person satisfies condition
A, then person gets to do action B
If you are 19, then you can drink beer
Evolution approach to Wason Task
Leda Cosmides & John Tooby: evolutionary perspective on
cognition = highly adaptive characteristic of mind fixated
by natural selection

Social exchange theory: ability for two people to

cooperate beneficially = important skill
o Detection of cheating = important skill, too
Designed experiments w/ made-up culture to
test cheating skills important variable in
Wason Task yes
Lessons from Wason Problem
Context w/in conditional reasoning important
Familiar situation = better results
o

Inductive reasoning: reaching conclusions from evidence

o Conclusions are suggested
o Validity of inductive argument:
Representativeness of observations: how well do observations
about a particular category represent all members of category?
Number of observations: more observations, more reliable
conclusion
Quality of evidence; stronger evidence, stronger conclusion
o Inductive reasoning provides mechanism for using past experience
present conclusions (short-cut)
o Availability heuristic
Events more easily remembered = judged as being more
probable
Illusory correlations can occur! : correlation b/w 2 things appears
to exist but is very weak /nonexistent
Ex) stereotype: selective attention paid to behaviors
confirming stereotype make said behaviors more available
to mind
o Representativeness heuristic
Making judgments based on how much Event A resembles Event
B
Probability A is a member of class B can be determined by
how many properties A resembles/shares w/ B
Base rate: relative proportion of different classes in
population
o Disregarded when descriptive info provided
Making judgments w/o considering conjunction rule
Probability of a conjunction of A & B cant be > probability
of A alone or B alone
Violate conjunction rule w/ representativeness heuristic
Incorrectly assuming small samples are representative
Law of large numbers: bigger sample size, more
representative it is of entire population
o Confirmation bias

Tendency to look selectively for info confirming our existing

hypothesis
Overlook disconfirming info
Wason 2-4-6 number sequence
Subjects had to guess the rule
o Did not disconfirm their own existing hypotheses of
rule = confirmation bias

Decision making: choosing among alternatives

o Utility approach to decisions
Expected utility theory: people are basically rational; decision
made resulting in maximum expected utiliy
Utility: outcomes achieving a persons goals
Advantage: specifies procedures to determine maximum
expected utility decision
Research: people are not rational!
o Emotions affect decisions
Expected emotions: what people predict they will feel about a
particular outcome
Can be used in utility approach: good expected emotion
merits good outcome
Immediate emotions: emotions that are experienced when
making a decision
Integral immediate emotion: associated w/ act of making
decision
Incidental immediate emotion: unrelated to decision
o People inaccurately predict their emotions
Risk aversion: tendency to avoid taking risks
Things going well? no risks
Things not going well? risk taking
Expected emotions: subjects predict slightly pleasant to win $5,
highly unpleasant to lose $3
Overestimate negative emotions: fail to account for
coping mechanisms
Failure to accurately predict expected emotions
inefficient decision making
o Incidental emotions affect decisions
Jennifer Lerner: view three film clips to elicit sadness, disgust,
neutral before have to set selling price for highlighter set
Sadness, disgust groups had lower sales prices
o Framing effect: decisions influenced by how choices are stated
Opt-in procedure: person has to take an active step
Low rates of people opting to be organ donors
Opt-out procedure: person does not have to take an active step

High rates of organ donation in countries where you optout if you dont want to
Risk-aversion strategy: used when choice framed in terms of
gain
Risk-taking strategy: used when choice framed in terms of loss
Justification in decision making
Shafir: vacation package after passing/failing exam experiment
Results: majority of participants opted to wait until after
finding out exam results to make a decision on
purchasing vacation
Significance: implies people waited to know outcome so
they could justify (assign a reason) to purchasing the
vacation
o Either as a reward or as consolation for
passing/failing exam

Physiology of Thinking
o Damage to prefrontal cortex
PFC integral to thinking
Planning and perseveration:
o Homemaker w/ tumor: couldnt plan family meal
o Damage affects flexibility
Leads to perseveration: difficulty in switching
from one behavior pattern to another
Problem solving:
o Decreases performance on Tower of Hanoi problem
Understanding stories:
o Cannot follow story events/make inferences
connecting different parts of story
Reasoning:
o More complex reasoning problems activate larger
areas of PFC
o Neuroeconomics: neural basis of decision making
Neuroeconomics: approach to studying decision making
combining research from psychology, neuroscience, economics
Alan Sanfey: ultimatum game proposer offers responder a
share of a given amount of money; responder agrees, money
split. Responder rejects, money lost
Utility theory: responder always agrees (that way both
sides get $)
Results: subjects rejected $1,2 offers due to anger @
unfairness
o Rejection activation of right anterior insula
o PFC activation in rejection & acceptance of offers

Omission bias: tendency to avoid making decision that could be interpreted

as causing harm
o But willing to make decision of lesser-evil for others besides
themselves