DOCSLIB.ORG

The Assessment of Biases in Cognition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Assessment of Biases in Cognition MTR160163 MITRE TECHNICAL REPORT The Assessment of Biases in Cognition This document reports on work supported by the Office of the Development and Evaluation of an Director of National Intelligence Assessment Instrument for the Measurement (ODNI), Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity of Cognitive Bias (IARPA), via contract 2015- 14120200002-002, and is subject to the Rights in Data-General Clause 52-227.14, Alt. IV (DEC 2007). The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the Abigail Gertner, The MITRE Corporation authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily Franklin Zaromb, Educational Testing Service representing the official policies or Robert Schneider, Research & Assessment endorsements, either expressed or Solutions, Ltd. implied, of IARPA, ODNI, or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Richard D. Roberts, Professional Examination Government is authorized to Service reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes Gerald Matthews, University of Central Florida notwithstanding any copyright annotation thereon. ©2016 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. Case Number 16-0956 Abstract The Assessment of Biases in Cognition (ABC) is a new standardized assessment of biases in judgment and decision-making behavior that was developed by the MITRE Corporation and the Educational Testing Service (ETS) for the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) Sirius Program. The purpose of the IARPA Sirius Program is to create serious video games designed to train intelligence analysts to improve their explicit knowledge of, and ability to recognize, six well-known cognitive biases and to significantly mitigate the influence of those biases on behavior as a result of this training. The six biases are: (1) confirmation bias (CB), (2) fundamental attribution error (FAE), (3) bias blind spot (BBS), (4) anchoring bias (ANC), (5) representativeness bias (REP), and (6) projection bias (PRO). The first version of the ABC (ABC-1) was developed for the first phase of the Sirius Program to assess mitigation of CB, FAE, and BBS. The second version of the ABC (ABC-2) was developed for use in second phase of the Sirius Program to assess mitigation of ANC, REP, and PRO. The ABC-1 and the ABC-2 each include one recognition and discrimination (RD) scale and three behavioral elicitation (BE) scales, one for each bias. The RD scales consist primarily of multiple- choice items and are intended to assess declarative knowledge of the biases. The BE scales consist of a variety of innovative tasks intended to evaluate test-takers’ procedural knowledge regarding how to avoid committing the targeted biases in judgment and decision-making tasks specifically designed to give test-takers opportunities to commit those biases. Each version of the ABC is administered online using a customized test delivery platform developed by the MITRE Corporation and takes approximately 45 to 60 minutes to complete. The ABC-1 and ABC-2 both include three equated test forms. This facilitated evaluation of bias mitigation training outcomes by making it possible to compare test-takers’ performance on one form post-training with their pre-training performance on an alternate, equated ABC test form. This report summarizes the (1) test development process, (2) research conducted during the development and validity evaluation of the ABC, (3) validity argument for the ABC, and (4) suggestions for future research. iii This page intentionally left blank. iv Executive Summary The Assessment of Biases in Cognition (ABC) is a new standardized assessment of biases in judgment and decision-making behavior that was developed by the MITRE Corporation and the Educational Testing Service (ETS) for the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) Sirius Program. The purpose of the IARPA Sirius Program is to create serious video games designed to train intelligence analysts to improve their explicit knowledge of, and ability to recognize, six well-known cognitive biases and to significantly mitigate the influence of those biases on behavior as a result of this training. The six biases are: (1) confirmation bias (CB), (2) fundamental attribution error (FAE), (3) bias blind spot (BBS), (4) anchoring bias (ANC), (5) representativeness bias (REP), and (6) projection bias (PRO). The Sirius Program was divided into two phases. Phase 1 encompassed biases 1–3 and took place between October 2011 and September 2013. The first version of the ABC (ABC-1) was developed for use in the Phase 1 Independent Validation and Verification (IV&V) study to assess mitigation of CB, FAE, and BBS. Phase 2 encompassed biases 4–6 and took place between September 2013 and November 2015. The second version of the ABC (ABC-2) was developed for use in the Phase 2 IV&V to assess mitigation of ANC, REP, and PRO. The ABC-1 and ABC- 2 are referred to, collectively, as the ABC. The ABC consists of two broad classes of items: recognition and discrimination (RD) and behavioral elicitation (BE). The ABC-1 and the ABC-2 each include one RD scale and three BE scales, one for each bias. The RD scales consist primarily of multiple-choice items and are intended to assess declarative knowledge of the biases. The BE scales consist of a variety of innovative tasks intended to evaluate test-takers’ procedural knowledge regarding how to avoid committing the targeted biases in judgment and decision-making tasks specifically designed to give test-takers opportunities to commit those biases. To the extent possible, the tasks were grounded in, and adapted to varying degrees from, extant paradigms relevant to each of the six biases. The BE tasks are complex scenario-based assessments that require test-takers to make decisions and solve problems presented in text, video, and/or voice-over audio formats, typically under conditions of uncertainty, time pressure, and/or rewards (and penalties). Each version of the ABC is administered online using a customized test delivery platform developed by the MITRE Corporation and takes approximately 45 to 60 minutes to complete. The ABC-1 and ABC-2 both include three equated test forms. This facilitated evaluation of bias mitigation training outcomes by making it possible to compare test-takers’ performance on one form post-training with their pre-training performance on an alternate, equated ABC test form. The purpose of this Executive Summary is to provide a relatively brief synopsis of the complete, and rather extensive, ABC technical report. In the sections that follow, we summarize the (1) test development process, (2) research conducted during the development and validity evaluation of the ABC, (3) validity argument for the ABC, and (4) suggestions for subsequent research based on the project described in this technical report. Test Development Development of the ABC-1 and ABC-2 included the following steps: • Construct Identification. This process included: v o reviewing literature relevant to the Sirius project biases, including bias description and elicitation, bias mitigation techniques, individual differences in bias susceptibility, correlates of the biases, and illustrations of how the biases relate to the work of intelligence analysts; o generating operational definitions of the bias constructs, including their facets, to help ensure the most complete possible coverage of each bias construct; and o periodically consulting with a technical advisory group (TAG), subject matter experts (SMEs), and the IV&V team (which included representatives from IARPA, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab [JHUAPL], and MITRE) in order to clarify the content and boundaries of each bias construct. • Development of Item Prototypes. We developed BE and RD item prototypes using the following sources: (1) operational definitions of each bias or bias facet; (2) our review of the literature; (2) case studies of intelligence analysis; (3) critical incidents adapted from in-depth interviews with several IC SMEs; and (4) input from the TAG and IV&V team. • Cognitive Laboratory Pilot Research. We conducted two rounds of cognitive lab studies of BE item prototypes with several dozen ETS employees to identify task elements that test-takers found to be unclear, distracting, or too demanding. In addition, we examined both concurrent think–aloud protocols and retrospective descriptions of test responses in order to enhance understanding of conscious decision making and problem solving strategies adopted by test-takers to improve the ABC. • Item Generation. Following the development and evaluation of item prototypes, we created a pool of over 600 BE and RD items during both phases of the project. The item pool included several dozen scripted scenarios that were filmed and edited by a professional video production company in Louisville, KY, and at the ETS Princeton, NJ, campus with local professional actors and ETS employees. • Item Review. Items were reviewed by assessment development specialists and SMEs, including the IV&V team and TAG, with respect to criteria such as (a) clarity, (b) lack of ambiguity and vagueness, (c) ensuring that the items do not assume knowledge specific to the intelligence analyst job, and (d) sensitivity to EEOC protected class (e.g., based on gender, race/ethnicity, age) bias and fairness issues. For items that had content specific to intelligence analysis work, additional reviews were performed by Intelligence Community SMEs at MITRE. • Pilot Testing. Because the constructs targeted
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Status Quo Bias and Decisions to Withdraw Life-Sustaining Treatment
    HUMANITIES | MEDICINE AND SOCIETY The status quo bias and decisions to withdraw life-sustaining treatment n Cite as: CMAJ 2018 March 5;190:E265-7. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.171005 t’s not uncommon for physicians and impasse. One factor that hasn’t been host of psychological phenomena that surrogate decision-makers to disagree studied yet is the role that cognitive cause people to make irrational deci- about life-sustaining treatment for biases might play in surrogate decision- sions, referred to as “cognitive biases.” Iincapacitated patients. Several studies making regarding withdrawal of life- One cognitive bias that is particularly show physicians perceive that nonbenefi- sustaining treatment. Understanding the worth exploring in the context of surrogate cial treatment is provided quite frequently role that these biases might play may decisions regarding life-sustaining treat- in their intensive care units. Palda and col- help improve communication between ment is the status quo bias. This bias, a leagues,1 for example, found that 87% of clinicians and surrogates when these con- decision-maker’s preference for the cur- physicians believed that futile treatment flicts arise. rent state of affairs,3 has been shown to had been provided in their ICU within the influence decision-making in a wide array previous year. (The authors in this study Status quo bias of contexts. For example, it has been cited equated “futile” with “nonbeneficial,” The classic model of human decision- as a mechanism to explain patient inertia defined as a treatment “that offers no rea- making is the rational choice or “rational (why patients have difficulty changing sonable hope of recovery or improvement, actor” model, the view that human beings their behaviour to improve their health), or because the patient is permanently will choose the option that has the best low organ-donation rates, low retirement- unable to experience any benefit.”) chance of satisfying their preferences.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Bias Mitigation: How to Make Decision-Making More Rational?
    Cognitive Bias Mitigation: How to make decision-making more rational? Abstract Cognitive biases distort judgement and adversely impact decision-making, which results in economic inefficiencies. Initial attempts to mitigate these biases met with little success. However, recent studies which used computer games and educational videos to train people to avoid biases (Clegg et al., 2014; Morewedge et al., 2015) showed that this form of training reduced selected cognitive biases by 30 %. In this work I report results of an experiment which investigated the debiasing effects of training on confirmation bias. The debiasing training took the form of a short video which contained information about confirmation bias, its impact on judgement, and mitigation strategies. The results show that participants exhibited confirmation bias both in the selection and processing of information, and that debiasing training effectively decreased the level of confirmation bias by 33 % at the 5% significance level. Key words: Behavioural economics, cognitive bias, confirmation bias, cognitive bias mitigation, confirmation bias mitigation, debiasing JEL classification: D03, D81, Y80 1 Introduction Empirical research has documented a panoply of cognitive biases which impair human judgement and make people depart systematically from models of rational behaviour (Gilovich et al., 2002; Kahneman, 2011; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Pohl, 2004). Besides distorted decision-making and judgement in the areas of medicine, law, and military (Nickerson, 1998), cognitive biases can also lead to economic inefficiencies. Slovic et al. (1977) point out how they distort insurance purchases, Hyman Minsky (1982) partly blames psychological factors for economic cycles. Shefrin (2010) argues that confirmation bias and some other cognitive biases were among the significant factors leading to the global financial crisis which broke out in 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Attribution of Intentions and Context Processing in Psychometric Schizotypy
    Cognitive Neuropsychiatry ISSN: 1354-6805 (Print) 1464-0619 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pcnp20 Attribution of intentions and context processing in psychometric schizotypy Romina Rinaldi, Laurent Lefebvre, Wivine Blekic, Frank Laroi & Julien Laloyaux To cite this article: Romina Rinaldi, Laurent Lefebvre, Wivine Blekic, Frank Laroi & Julien Laloyaux (2018) Attribution of intentions and context processing in psychometric schizotypy, Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 23:6, 364-376, DOI: 10.1080/13546805.2018.1528972 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13546805.2018.1528972 Published online: 06 Oct 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 33 View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pcnp20 COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHIATRY 2018, VOL. 23, NO. 6, 364–376 https://doi.org/10.1080/13546805.2018.1528972 Attribution of intentions and context processing in psychometric schizotypy Romina Rinaldia,b, Laurent Lefebvreb, Wivine Blekicb, Frank Laroic,d,e and Julien Laloyauxc,d,e aGrand Hôpital de Charleroi, Hôpital Notre-Dame, Charleroi, Belgium; bCognitive psychology and Neuropsychology Department, University of Mons, Mons, Belgium; cDepartment of Biological and Medical Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; dNORMENT – Norwegian Center of Excellence for Mental Disorders Research, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; ePsychology and Neuroscience of Cognition Research Unit, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Introduction: Impairment in Theory of mind (TOM) has frequently Received 26 January 2018 been associated with schizophrenia and with schizotypy. Studies Accepted 15 September 2018 have found that a tendency to over-attribute intentions and KEYWORDS special meaning to events and to people is related to positive Psychotic symptoms; theory psychotic symptoms.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionary Psychology and Human Reasoning: Testing the Domain-Specificity Hypothesis Through Wason Selection Task
    Evolutionary Psychology and Human Reasoning: Testing the Domain-Specificity Hypothesis through Wason Selection Task Fabrizio Ferrara ([email protected])* Amedeo Esposito ([email protected])* Barbara Pizzini ([email protected])* Olimpia Matarazzo ([email protected])* *Department of Psychology - Second University of Naples, Viale Ellittico 31, Caserta, 81100 Italy Abstract during phylogenetic development. Both these approaches, albeit based on a different conception of the human mind, The better performance in the selection task with deontic rules, compared to the descriptive version, has been share the assumption that it is better equipped for reasoning interpreted by evolutionary psychologists as the evidence that with general (e.g. Cummins 1996, 2013) or specific (e.g. human reasoning has been shaped to deal with either global or Cosmides, 1989; Cosmides & Tooby, 2013) deontic norms specific deontic norms. An alternative hypothesis is that the rather than with epistemic concepts (i.e. the concepts related two types of rules have been embedded in two different forms to knowledge and belief). of reasoning, about and from a rule, the former demanding Experimental evidence achieved mainly by means of the more complex cognitive processes. In a between-subjects study with 640 participants we manipulated the content of the selection task (Wason, 1966) is thought to support this rule (deontic vs. social contract vs. precaution vs. descriptive) claim. In the original formulation, this task consists in and the type of task (reasoning about, traditionally associated selecting the states of affairs necessary to determine the to indicative tasks, vs. reasoning from, traditionally associated truth-value of a descriptive (or indicative) rule expressed to deontic tasks).
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Biases in Economic Decisions – Three Essays on the Impact of Debiasing
    TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT MÜNCHEN Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre – Strategie und Organisation Univ.-Prof. Dr. Isabell M. Welpe Cognitive biases in economic decisions – three essays on the impact of debiasing Christoph Martin Gerald Döbrich Abdruck der von der Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaften der Technischen Universität München zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Wirtschaftswissenschaften (Dr. rer. pol.) genehmigten Dissertation. Vorsitzender: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Gunther Friedl Prüfer der Dissertation: 1. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Isabell M. Welpe 2. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. Holger Patzelt Die Dissertation wurde am 28.11.2012 bei der Technischen Universität München eingereicht und durch die Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaften am 15.12.2012 angenommen. Acknowledgments II Acknowledgments Numerous people have contributed to the development and successful completion of this dissertation. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. Isabell M. Welpe for her continuous support, all the constructive discussions, and her enthusiasm concerning my dissertation project. Her challenging questions and new ideas always helped me to improve my work. My sincere thanks also go to Prof. Dr. Matthias Spörrle for his continuous support of my work and his valuable feedback for the articles building this dissertation. Moreover, I am grateful to Prof. Dr. Dr. Holger Patzelt for acting as the second advisor for this thesis and Professor Dr. Gunther Friedl for leading the examination board. This dissertation would not have been possible without the financial support of the Elite Network of Bavaria. I am very thankful for the financial support over two years which allowed me to pursue my studies in a focused and efficient manner. Many colleagues at the Chair for Strategy and Organization of Technische Universität München have supported me during the completion of this thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Memory, Attention, and Choice
    Memory, Attention, and Choice Pedro Bordalo, Nicola Gennaioli, Andrei Shleifer1 Revised May 7, 2019 (original version 2015) Abstract. Building on the textbook description of associative memory (Kahana 2012), we present a model of choice in which options cue recall of similar past experiences. Recall shapes valuation and choice in two ways. First, recalled experiences form a norm, which serves as an initial anchor for valuation. Second, salient quality and price surprises relative to the norm lead to large adjustments in valuation. The model provides a unified account of many well documented choice puzzles including experience effects, projection and attribution biases, background contrast effects, and context- dependent willingness to pay. The results suggest that well-established psychological processes – memory-based norms and attention to surprising features – are key to understanding decision-making. 1 The authors are from University of Oxford, Universita Bocconi, and Harvard University, respectively. We are grateful to Dan Benjamin, Paulo Costa, Ben Enke, Matt Gentzkow, Sam Gershman, Thomas Graeber, Michael Kahana, Spencer Kwon, George Loewenstein, Sendhil Mullainathan, Josh Schwartzstein, Jesse Shapiro, Jann Spiess, Linh To, and Pierre- Luc Vautrey for valuable comments. Shleifer thanks the Sloan Foundation and the Pershing Square Venture Fund for Research on the Foundations of Human Behavior for financial support. 1 1. Introduction Memory appears to play a central role in even the simplest choices. Consider a thirsty traveler thinking of whether to look for a shop to buy a bottle of water at the airport. He automatically retrieves from memory similar past experiences, including the pleasure of quenching his thirst and the prices he paid before, and decides based on these recollections.
    [Show full text]
  • Ms. Scott's A.P. Psychology Summer Assignment Due on the First Day Of
    Ms. Scott’s A.P. Psychology Summer Assignment due on the first day of class, August 12th. If you have any questions, please email me at [email protected]. Summer Assignment 2019-2020 “You Are Not So Smart” by David McRaney ***Note: you can order this book through amazon.com and many other resources online, but you can also ask your local libraries to get it for you. If you have trouble attaining this book, email me asap because I can assist you with this. Humans like to think that we are rational and logical beings, however decades of research in cognitive psychology has proven otherwise. The book, “You are Not so Smart” by David McRaney explores the failings of memory, how we do things without having a clue why we are doing them, and the narratives we construct and tell ourselves to make us feel better about our choices and decisions. This book is a fabulous summer read for many reasons. First of all, we will be learning about every single concept presented in the book at some point this year. Second of all, each chapter is very short and engaging. Best of all, as you read, your mind will be flooded with memories and personal experiences that connect with the concepts and stories presented in the book. After reading the entire book, please complete these two assignments: 1. There are many very important AP Psychology concepts presented in the book. Complete the attached chart where you define each concept using your own words and provide a specific example from the book or in your own life.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Psychology
    COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY PSYCH 126 Acknowledgements College of the Canyons would like to extend appreciation to the following people and organizations for allowing this textbook to be created: California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Chancellor Diane Van Hook Santa Clarita Community College District College of the Canyons Distance Learning Office In providing content for this textbook, the following professionals were invaluable: Mehgan Andrade, who was the major contributor and compiler of this work and Neil Walker, without whose help the book could not have been completed. Special Thank You to Trudi Radtke for editing, formatting, readability, and aesthetics. The contents of this textbook were developed under the Title V grant from the Department of Education (Award #P031S140092). However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Unless otherwise noted, the content in this textbook is licensed under CC BY 4.0 Table of Contents Psychology .................................................................................................................................................... 1 126 ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Chapter 1 - History of Cognitive Psychology ............................................................................................. 7 Definition of Cognitive Psychology
    [Show full text]
  • Can Self-Persuasion Reduce Hostile Attribution Bias in Young Children?
    Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-018-0499-2 Can Self-Persuasion Reduce Hostile Attribution Bias in Young Children? Anouk van Dijk1 & Sander Thomaes1 & Astrid M. G. Poorthuis1 & Bram Orobio de Castro1 # The Author(s) 2018 Abstract Two experiments tested an intervention approach to reduce young children’s hostile attribution bias and aggression: self-persua- sion. Children with high levels of hostile attribution bias recorded a video-message advocating to peers why story characters who caused a negative outcome may have had nonhostile intentions (self-persuasion condition), or they simply described the stories (control condition). Before and after the manipulation, hostile attribution bias was assessed using vignettes of ambiguous provocations. Study 1 (n =83,age4–8) showed that self-persuasion reduced children’s hostile attribution bias. Study 2 (n = 121, age 6–9) replicated this finding, and further showed that self-persuasion was equally effective at reducing hostile attribution bias as was persuasion by others (i.e., listening to an experimenter advocating for nonhostile intentions). Effects on aggressive behavior, however, were small and only significant for one out of four effects tested. This research provides the first evidence that self-persuasion may be an effective approach to reduce hostile attribution bias in young children. Keywords Hostile attribution bias . Self-persuasion . Aggression . Intervention . Experiments Children’s daily social interactions abound with provocations by Dodge 1994). The present research tests an intervention approach peers, such as when they are physically hurt, laughed at, or ex- to reduce hostile attribution bias in young children. cluded from play. The exact reasons behind these provocations, Most interventions that effectively reduce children’s hostile and especially the issue of whether hostile intent was involved, attribution bias rely on attribution retraining techniques (e.g., are often unclear.
    [Show full text]
  • Reasoning Versus Text Processing in the Wason Selection Task: a Nondeontic Perspective on Perspective Effects
    Memory & Cognition 2000,28 (6), 1060-1070 Reasoning versus text processing in the Wason selection task: A nondeontic perspective on perspective effects AMITALMOR University ofSouthern California, Los Angeles, California and STEVEN A. SLOMAN Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island Weargue that perspective effects in the Wason four-card selection task are a product of the linguis­ tic interpretation of the rule in the context of the problem text and not of the reasoning process un­ derlying card selection. In three experiments, participants recalled the rule they used in either a se­ lection or a plausibility rating task. The results showed that (1) participants tended to recall rules compatible with their card selection and not with the rule as stated in the problem and (2) recall was not affected by whether or not participants performed card selection. Weconclude that perspective ef­ fects in the Wason selection task do not concern how card selection is reasoned about but instead re­ flect the inferential text processing involved in the comprehension of the problem text. Together with earlier research that showed selection performance in nondeontic contexts to be indistinguishable from selection performance in deontic contexts (Almor & Sloman, 1996; Sperber, Cara, & Girotto, 1995), the present results undermine the claim that reasoning in a deontic context elicits specialized cognitive processes. A central question regarding the nature ofhuman rea­ 1966) and as a means ofstudying various factors that may soning is whether it operates solely on the basis ofgen­ help "rehabilitate" people's apparently illogical thinking eral domain-independent principles or whether reason­ (Griggs & Cox, 1982, 1983; Wason & Shapiro, 1971), the ing is domain-specific.
    [Show full text]
  • Conditional Reasoning: the Importance of Individual Differences*
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Repositorio Institucional da Universidade de Santiago de Compostela CONDITIONAL REASONING: THE IMPORTANCE OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES* Mª Dolores Valiña, Gloria Seoane, Mª José Ferraces & Montserrat Martín University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain) INTRODUCTION The study of thinking and reasoning is a topic of central interest for economists, anthropologists, logicians, pedagogues and of course for psychologists. A central problem in the experimental investigation in Psychology is to describe how people think and reason deductively and inductively. There are three fundamental theoretical approaches to deductive reasoning in the Cognitive Psychology: mental logic, mental models and pragmatic schemas (see Evans, Newstead & Byrne, 1993, for a detailed review). There are several proponents of a universal mental logic (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958) or natural logics (Braine, 1978, 1990, 1994; Braine & O´Brien, 1991; Braine & Rumain, 1983; Osherson, 1974, 1975; Rips, 1983, 1990, 1994). Other authors propose that reasoning is based on construction and evaluation of mental models (Johnson-Laird, 1983; Johnson-Laird & Byrne, 1991). A third approach asserts that reasoning is not based on general inference rules and assumes that people have domain-specific reasoning mechanisms such as pragmatic reasoning schemas inductively acquired (Cheng & Holyoak, 1985, 1989; Cheng, Holyoak, Nisbett & Oliver, 1986; Holyoak & Cheng, 1995) or innates procedures for identify potential deviations from social contracts (Cosmides 1985, 1989; Cosmides & Tooby, 1992) _______________________ * An extended version of this paper has been published in the chapter: “Conditional reasoning: The importance of individual differences”, of the book: Mental Models in Reasoning, J.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Emotional Reasoning and Parent-Based Reasoning in Normal Children
    Morren, M., Muris, P., Kindt, M. Emotional reasoning and parent-based reasoning in normal children. Child Psychiatry and Human Development: 35, 2004, nr. 1, p. 3-20 Postprint Version 1.0 Journal website http://www.springerlink.com/content/105587/ Pubmed link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dop t=Abstract&list_uids=15626322&query_hl=45&itool=pubmed_docsum DOI 10.1023/B:CHUD.0000039317.50547.e3 Address correspondence to M. Morren, Department of Medical, Clinical, and Experimental Psychology, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands; e-mail: [email protected]. Emotional Reasoning and Parent-based Reasoning in Normal Children MATTIJN MORREN, MSC; PETER MURIS, PHD; MEREL KINDT, PHD DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL, CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY, THE NETHERLANDS ABSTRACT: A previous study by Muris, Merckelbach, and Van Spauwen1 demonstrated that children display emotional reasoning irrespective of their anxiety levels. That is, when estimating whether a situation is dangerous, children not only rely on objective danger information but also on their own anxiety-response. The present study further examined emotional reasoning in children aged 7–13 years (N =508). In addition, it was investigated whether children also show parent-based reasoning, which can be defined as the tendency to rely on anxiety-responses that can be observed in parents. Children completed self-report questionnaires of anxiety, depression, and emotional and parent-based reasoning. Evidence was found for both emotional and parent-based reasoning effects. More specifically, children’s danger ratings were not only affected by objective danger information, but also by anxiety-response information in both objective danger and safety stories.
    [Show full text]