Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

33 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
We discussed the concept of "recallability" or availability. What is the concept? How might it influence decisions?
Availability deals with how easy it is for an event or concept to come to mind. This can influence decisions because you could put disproportionate weight on something just because it can be easily recalled, perhaps due to recency or vividness.
In our last meeting, we noted that, at the extreme, we seem to engage in two types of "reasoning": intuitive and deliberate. How are they different?
Intuitive reasoning is quick, easy, doesn't take much effort and is almost "subconscious." Deliberate reasoning is a slow, thought out process that takes many variables into consideration, involving more effort.
We also noted two other types of rationality: substantive and procedural. What are these?
Substantive rationality focuses on the outcome while procedural rationality focuses on the process.
Now, how do all three (bounded, procedural, and substantive) interact with each other. [Recall the arrows]
BR >> PR >> SR (going up)
Bounded = constraints on process
Procedural = quality of process
Substantive = quality of result
When we discuss humans in decision making and problem solving, we said that it is important to consider the notion of "bounded rationality." What do we mean by this term? What are "bounds"?
There are limits and "bounds" to how well we can rationalize or interpret something. These include limits on analytical ability, intellectual capacity, access to perfect/complete information, and more.
A bank has a policy where the original account managers of problem loans must be switched off of the account. What is this trying to avoid and why is this a concern?
Sunk Cost

The original account manager would want to keep trying to fix the problem loan to prove that he did the right thing by granting the loan in the first place, but he really may just be throwing money into a bad cause.
Your consultant makes a presentation on their ideas for your company's expansion. For each point they make, they cite data to support that point. After the presentation, there is loud applause. However, you have some reservations on the presentation -- not so much on what they did present, but what they didn't. What did they not present? You are thinking of what trap?
They didn't present data that argues against their points.

Confirming Evidence trap
The IRS is concerned with tax cheaters. A special choice to create a series of ads to publicize the consequences of tax cheating is made. What month should they place these ads on TV? What term is relevant here?

You conduct a little experiment. You present two groups of individuals with a situation that is basically the same:
1. You are going to the theater to see a play that cost you $30 for a ticket, which you already purchased. As you prepare to enter, you discover you have lost the ticket. You have the option of purchasing another one right there for an additional $30. Will you?
2. You are going to the theater to see a play that cost you $30 for a ticket. As you walk up to purchase a ticket, you discover you have lost $30 on the way to the theater. You have the option of purchasing one right there for an additional $30. Will you purchase the ticket?
Which situation do you think resulted in the LEAST numbers that chose to purchase a ticket? What concept might be working here?

Related to the prior question, in our last meeting we noted (with a little image of a person) that three events occur when one faces a decision or problem. What are these?
perceptions --> (front of face)
(back of head) <-- deliberate reasoning
^what is cued?
You are integrating a series of estimates from your portfolio of projects. One of your project leaders drops in to chat. During the conversation, he makes the following comment: "Underestimating the project can be disastrous, but overestimating really has no downside." You think about this and respond...
This is not completely true because overestimating can have downsides. If you overestimate and don't use all your money, then next year you may be budgeted less money because people think you're overestimating again.
As you move from amateur to master, some people thought that you learn to evaluate more and more chess move options. They also thought that the same thing happens when you move from master to grandmaster. Are these assumptions correct? Explain.
The assumption is correct for amateur to master, as masters analyze more moves than amateurs do during the game. However, there is little increase of analyzing moves between master and grandmasters. Some grandmasters even get to the point where they only see one move, but it's always the right one.
De Groot had chess players briefly look at chess pieces on a board that reflected an ongoing game, then had them try to reconstruct it from memory. Experts differed from novices in two ways.
Experts could not only reconstruct the set-up perfectly (while amateurs only could recall a few pieces), but they also only had to look at the set-up for a few seconds (while novices needed as many as 30 seconds).
Also, what additional "twist" did researchers do on the task of reconstructing the chess pieces on a board, and what happened? What did this explain?
The twist was to set up pieces randomly (rather than as a result of a game). There was much less correlation between level of skill and recall in this situation. This explained that experts have very specific knowledge -- not just about chess, but rather of typical chess positions.
What is the 10-year rule?
It takes approximately a decade of heavy labor to master any field/become an expert at something.
What is "The Magic Number 7, plus or minus 2"? What is the significance of this in reasoning?
We can only recall approximately 5-9 items at a time. This is significant related to chunking because if you're able to chunk individual items together, you can then recall 7 +/- 2 chunks of info rather than just 7 individual items.
What is metacognition?
Metacognition is the ability to monitor your behavior and reflect on it.
What is "long term-working memory"?
Long term working memory is long term memory that is able to be quickly accessed temporarily by means of retrieval cues in short term working memory to be used in thinking or decision making.
What are the four key steps usually found in reasoning by analogy?
1. Recognize analogy and identify purpose
2. Understand source
3. Assess similarities
4. Translate, Decide and Adapt
What is effortful study? Is this the same as practice?
Effortful study is constantly challenging yourself to do things just beyond your level of ability. This is different from practice, where you just may be be maintaining your skills at a comfortable level.
What is "automaticity"? What role does it play in developing expertise?
Automaticity is the ability to do something or think of something almost subconsciously/intuitively. It is one of the elements of developing expertise because you no longer have to think or analyze in order to perform the task.
What is a chunk? What role does it play in acquiring expertise?
A chunk is a group of items condensed together into one item. This helps expertise because you can easily recall large sets/chunks of information at one time rather than item by item.
Regarding the "automaticity of social life", researchers used the concept of "priming" to demonstrate the "perception-behavior" link, with individuals waiting at an airport. Explain this example.
Experimentors tested how likely participants were to help someone after being asked question about their friends compared to being asked questions about their co-workers. When they were primed with representations of their friends, they were much more likely to help, acting in line with the representations that had been primed.
In the article, "Why it's so hard to be fair," what is the general concept of "process fairness" and how does this differ from "outcome fairness"?
Process fairness deals with how an individual is treated by their employer throughout the process of a decision. Outcome fairness deals with how happy they are with the outcome of the final decision. In process fairness, they are not necessarily satisfied by the final outcome, but they feel that they have been treated justly and understand the process that led to it.
What is a "social dilemma"?
A situation in which individuals have an incentive to act in a way that -- if all choose to act this way -- the outcome is a lot worse than if no one had acted this way.
In Jim March's "Logic of Appropriateness", what are the 3 questions that drive how an individual behaves?
1. What is the situation?
2. What kind of person am I?
3. What to do? (based on natural rules involving answers to the previous 2 questions)
What is "altruism"?
Helping others with no obvious personal gain
What is the difference between strong and weak altruism?
Strong altruism has no motive to somehow receive personal benefit from your action. Weak altruism is done with the expectation that you'll eventually receive some form of "payback"
In Emler's research, it was argued that a specific objective of gossip, even in modern societies, is what?
Reputation management
What is self-deception and how can this possibly be an advantage in society?
Self-deception is subconsciously lying to yourself. It is advantageous because it allows you to lie to others more convincingly
There seems to be 3 critical factors of process fairness. What are they?
1. Input in decision process
2. How fairly the decision is made/implemented
3. Managers' behavior
In a series of studies of "natural" conversations, Dunbar concluded that the overall result pointed to a particular type of topic that accounted from almost 65% of speaking time. What was it?
Social topics, aka "gossip"
Research demonstrated that people are "polite to computers" In a broader evolutionary sense, what idea might underlie why this occurs?
People err on the side of kindness and humanity toward anything that in any way resembles or acts like a human being