Study Guides (380,000)
CA (150,000)
McGill (6,000)
PSYC (600)
Final

PSYC 180 Study Guide - Final Guide: Broken Windows Theory, Conjunction Fallacy, Availability Heuristic


Department
Psychology
Course Code
PSYC 180
Professor
Amir Raz
Study Guide
Final

This preview shows pages 1-3. to view the full 10 pages of the document.
PSYC 180
Critical Thinking: Biases and Illusions
Final Exam Review: Terminologies
flow: a state of effortless concentration so deep that you lose your sense of time, of yourself and
of your problems
ego depletion: when you have forced yourself to do something you are less willing or less
able to exert self-control when the next challenge comes
associatively coherent: a self reinforcing pattern of cognitive, emotional, and physical
responses that is both diverse and integrated
priming effect: related words can be evoked
cognitive ease: the range between “easy” and “strained”; when things are going well and
there are no threats or major news, etc.
cognitive strain: affected by both the current level of effort and the presence of unmet
demands
mere exposure effect: being exposed more frequently to something makes you favour it
more
halo effect: tendency to like (or dislike) everything about a person - including the things you
have not observed (i.e first impressions)
WYSIATI: What You See Is All There Is
judgement heuristic: winning and losing candidates show that we biologically predisposed
to reject candidates who lack the attributes we value
sum-like variables: of what the size of the category, the number of instances it contains tends
to be ignored
substitution: when an answer to a hard question is not found immediately, system 1 finds a
related question that is easier and will answer it
affect heuristic: people let their likes and dislikes determine their beliefs about the world
anchoring effect: occurs when people consider a particular value for an unknown quantity
before estimating that quantity - the estimates stay close to the number that people considered,
hence image of an anchor
availability heuristic: substitutes one question for another

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

availability cascade: the mechanism through which biases flow into policy (due to media,
there is public panic and people become aroused and emotional which then becomes a story in
itself and thus more media coverage)
base rate: the class probabilities unconditioned on featural evidence, also known as prior
probabilities (how often something occurs)
representativeness: focusing exclusively on the similarity of the descrption to the
stereotypes and ignoring both the base rates and the doubts about the veracity of the description
sin of representativeness: excessive willingness to predict the occurance of
unlikely (low base rate) events or insensitivity to the quality of evidence
fallacy: when people fail to apply a logical rule that is obviously relevent
conjunction fallacy: people commit when they judge a conjunction of two events to be more
probable than one of the events in a direct comparison
statistical base rates: facts about a population to which a case belongs, but not relevant to
the case
causal base rates: they change your view of how the individual case came to be (a
stereotypical trait that is attributed to an individual or a significant feature of the situation that
affects an individual’s outcome)
regression to the mean: inference due to random fluctuations in the quality of performance
correlation coefficient: between two measures, varies between 0 and 1, and is a measure of
the relative weight of the factors they share (their linear dependence)
narrative fallacy: flawed stories of the past shape our view of the world and our expectations
for the future
hindsight bias: your inability to reconstruct past beliefs will inevitably cause you to
underestimate the extent to which you were surprised by past events
outcome bias: we assess the quality of a decision not by whether the process was sound but
by whether its outcome was good or bad
illusion of validity: thinking that your judgment of a person is correct based on little evidence
and WYSIATI when it really isn’t
illusion of skill: people believe tey know more about something than the market does
multiple regression: a statistical practice that assigns weights to different predictors

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

recognition-primed decision (RPD): applies to expertie in various domains. The “expert”
makes decisions with a single option and evaluate it by mentally simulating it to see if it would
worki n the situation they were facing. if it wasn’t appropriate, they would modify it. If not easily
modified they would turn to the nect most plausible option
planning fallacy: plans and forecasts that are unrealistically close to the best case scenarios
and that could be improved by consulting the statistics of similar cases
sunken-cost fallacy: making an additional investment because you don’t want to admit
failure
competition neglect: entreneurs to do not think about their competition when starting up.
more competitors enter the market than the market can profitably sustain, so their average
outcome is a loss
premortem: when an organization has almost come to an important decision but has not yet
formally committed itself
loss aversion: losses loom larger than gains
indifferent map: the more leisure you ahve, the less you care for an extra day of it, and each
day added is worth less than the one before
endowment effect: if you have something you are not willing to sell or trade for a price not
significantly higher than what you would buy it for
certainty effect: outcomes that are almost certain are given less weight than their probability
justifies
narrow framing: a sequence of two simple decisions, considered separately
broad framing: a single decision, with four options
the disposition effect: there is a massive preference for selling winners rather than losers
(instance of narrow framing)
taboo tradeoff: being against accepting any increase in risk
preference reversal: an individual chooses one bet over another but is then willing to pay
money to exchange the item they just chose for the one they rejected
evaluability hypothesis: the number of entries (in a dictionary) is given no weight in single
evaluation, but in joint evaluation it is obvious that one (dictionary) is superior (10 000 entries vs
20 000 entries with a torn-off cover)
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version