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
normative theory
how one ought to reason... ie rules of logic
descriptive theory
how people actually reason... ie heuristics and biases
deductive reasoning examples
linear syllogisms, conditional, categorical syllogisms
linear syllogisms
between two items, at least one of the items is common to both premises, linear relationships and quantitative or qualitative
conditional reasoning
where the reasoner must draw a conclusion based on an if (condition) then (consequence) proposition... if the antecedent is met, then the consequent even will follow
distance effects
we more quickly say things are bigger/larger than other things if they are further apart, ex. horse is larger than a cat we say faster than horse is larger than a goat
categorical reasoning
how similar (or dissimilar) are categories X and Y..
all are X and Y
some X are Y
no X is Y
categorical reasoning uses...
euler circles
types of categorical syllogisms
atmospheric heuristic:
universal affirmative
universal negative
particular affirmative
particular negative
euler circles used to...
determine is there is any condition in which both premises could be true but conclusion is false... people often mistake validity for truth
atmospheric heuristic with universal vs particular
if at least one "some" in premises, prefer "some" in the conclusion
atmospheric heuristic with positive vs negative
If at least one "not" in the premises, then prefer "not" in the conclusion
mental models of categorical reasoning
construct model for each premise and try to combine them.. get more wrong when need more than one model to falsify the syllogism
problem with categorical syllogisms
usually too much info, try to create representation, if we can't then we use heuristics.. big WM load, may forget or incorrectly process info, still makes mistakes
pragmatic reasoning schema
used to decide what is trye based on experience
permission schema
if a certain action is to be taken, then a certain condition must be met. "if you are going to drink beer, then you must be 21"
evolutionary approach: social contract schema
standard social contracts, if you take the benefit, you must pay the cost... natural selection means we must compete with others, so our brains have evolved innate mechanisms that look for "cheaters" and "threats"
cheater detection: role of emotion?
in some conditions, people do better if they are pissed or angry
encapsulated reasoning
reasoning according to one scheme does not transfer well to other situations
context-bound reasoning
success at the problem will depend on how well the problem invokes or matches the schme
base rate
percent of people in the population that have cancer (or anything)
Normative theories: optimal
current evidence, base rate
Bayes Theorem - 3 things
base rate
hit rate
false alarm rate
can make errors in descriptive reasoning for 2 reasons....
dont properly consider the current evidence.
dont properly consider the base rate
representativeness heuristic
judge whether A comes from class B by relying on thesimilarity of A to B.
problems with representativeness heuristic
focuses too much on current evidence, ignores base rate
gambler's fallacy
recent occurrence of an event reduces the perceived probability of that event
availability heuristic
used this when estimating frequency or probability by the ease with which instances or associations could be brought to mind
simulation heuristic
base judgements on how easily you can imagine... ie how things will turn out in the future, and how things would have turned out in different circumstances
conjunction fallacy
occurs when people mistakenly believe that the probability of a conjunction of two events is greater than the probability of one of the events
framing effect
the way that the options are presented influences selection of an option