Thinking notes.

The concept of prototype psychology is closely related to schema in psychology.

Linguistically, the word “prototype” is used for something original — an original
form of something that serves as a standard. Similarly, prototype in psychology
refers to what is perceived to be a complete image of something with all expected
qualities and characteristics present. In cognitive science, prototype theory refers
to graded categorization where some members of a category are more central, or
more perfect, than others. This means that although some things may belong to a
certain category of elements, they still may be perceived as unequal.
An example of this inequality is chicken and birds category. Most people will
regard robins or pigeons as good examples of birds category; pigeons and robins
are more prototypical of a bird than chicken. Although everyone knows that
chicken is a bird, for some reason it has a less privileged status than other birds.
Chicken is viewed as less of a bird by many. Prototypes are influenced by many
factors including one’s language, social background, and cultural background.
Different people may have different perception and interpretation of same words.
For example, the word “vehicles” may mean buses and cars to a city man, but to a
farmer from a mountainous area it may mean carriages and motorcycles. Another
example is dragon. Dragon is a mythological animal that is present in many
cultures. In Chinese culture, however, dragons are a symbol of royalty. Dragons
were supposed to stand up for kings or emperors, and, even today, they often
appear in Chinese designs and artwork. Compare that to the Western perception
of dragons where they are associated with evil. Because prototype is so
dependent on social factors, it may change and evolve with the change of social
factors, technological progress, and language evolution. Prototyping helps us
organize and interpret vast information we receive from the outside world.
Prototype allows us to take shortcuts and make quick judgement and decisions.
On the other hand, it may sometimes block some new information and force us to
focus on our pre-existing ideas, making us less open and flexible. Needless to say,
prototypes can contribute to prejudice based on race, ethnicity, or social status.
What is reasoning?
thinking in which logical processes of an inductive or deductive character are
used to draw conclusions from facts or premises.
Reasoning is the process of using existing knowledge to draw conclusions, make
predictions, or construct explanations.
Reasoning vs Thinking
Thinking and reasoning are two mental processes between which a key
difference can be discerned. Thinking encapsulates a large arena of thought
production that can be either conscious or unconscious. On the contrary,
reasoning is limited to the conscious production of mental thought with the use of
logic.
Types of reasoning.
Deductive reasoning
Main article: Deductive reasoning
Deductive arguments are intended to have reasoning that is valid. Reasoning in an
argument is valid if the argument's conclusion must be true when the premises
(the reasons given to support that conclusion) are true. One classic example of
deductive reasoning is that found in syllogisms like the following:
Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a human.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

The reasoning in this argument is valid, because there is no way in which the
premises, 1 and 2, could be true and the conclusion, 3, be false.

Validity is a property of the reasoning in the argument, not a property of the

premises in the argument or the argument as a whole. In fact, the truth or falsity
of the premises and the conclusion is irrelevant to the validity of the reasoning in
the argument. The following argument, with a false premise and a false
conclusion, is also valid, (it has the form of reasoning known as modus ponens).
Premise 1: If green is a colour, then grass poisons cows.
Premise 2: Green is a colour.
Conclusion: Grass poisons cows.
 Again, if the premises in this argument were true, the reasoning is such that the
conclusion would also have to be true.

In a deductive argument with valid reasoning the conclusion contains no more

information than is contained in the premises. Therefore, deductive reasoning
does not increase one's knowledge base, and so is said to be non-ampliative.

Within the field of formal logic, a variety of different forms of deductive reasoning
have been developed. These involve abstract reasoning using symbols, logical
operators and a set of rules that specify what processes may be followed to arrive
at a conclusion. These forms of reasoning include Aristotelian logic, also known as
syllogistic logic, propositional logic, predicate logic, and modal logic.
Propositional Reasoning
Propositional reasoning is a form of deductive reasoning, which goes from the
general to the specific. Through deductive reasoning one can state with absolute
certainty that a conclusion is either true or false. In that sense it is similar
to syllogistic reasoning, which involves syllogisms, where a conclusion is drawn or
evaluated based on two or more premises. Propositional reasoning on the other
hand involves propositions, which are sentences that are either true or false
(Galotti, 2008), e.g. “Mark likes football” or “Berlin is the capital of Germany”.
These propositions are abbreviated to letters, such as p or q. By using logical
connectives single propositions can be combined into more complicated ones.
Logical connectives include: ¬ (‘not’) for negations, & (‘and’) for conjunctions, v
(‘or’) fordisjunctions, and → (‘If…, then…’) for conditionals (Galotti, 2008). For
instance, the sentence “If it is raining, then I get wet” can be rephrased as p → q ,
where p stands for ‘rain’ and q stands for ‘getting wet’.
Syllogistic Reasoning
Syllogistic reasoning is concerned with using syllogisms to draw conclusions from
premises.
• Syllogism: An argument composed of two statements or premises (the major
and minor premises), followed by a conclusion.
• For any given set of premises, if the conclusion is guaranteed, the arguments is
said to be valid.
• If the conclusion is not guaranteed (at least one instance in which the conclusion
does not follow), the argument is said to be invalid.
• BE CARFEUL, DO NOT CONFUSE TRUTH WITH VALIDITY!
All math teachers are over 7 feet tall.
Mr. D. is a math teacher.
Therefore, Mr. D is over 7 feet tall.
• The argument is valid, but is certainly not true.

Analogical Reasoning
Analogical reasoning is a method of processing information that compares the
similarities between new and understood concepts, then uses those similarities to
gain understanding of the new concept. It is a form of inductive
reasoning because it strives to provide understanding of what is likely to be true,
rather than deductively proving something as fact. This method can be used by
both children and adults as a way to learn new information or as part of a
persuasive argument.
Analogical reasoning is based on the brain’s ability to form patterns by
association. The brain may be able to understand new concepts more easily if
they are perceived as being part of a pattern. If a new concept is compared to
something the brain already knows, it may be more likely that the brain will store
the new information more readily.
The field of science also uses this type of reasoning, but it is used for coming up
with new concepts rather than for persuasion. Scientists will often compare a
proven scientific process with an unproven one to form hypotheses to base new
research on. They may reason that because two processes are similar in one way,
they may be more likely to have more things in common.
Psychologists often focus on the cognitive aspects of reasoning. They may
perform research to determine how and why the brain retains information
through analogies. Psychologists may also study the differences between how
children and adults use them.
 CATEGORICAL REASONING
l A form of deductive argument.
l Also called syllogism.
l Consists of two or more premises that precede the conclusion.
l Reasoning conclusions about the properties of individuals from more general
premises that concern all the members of the relevant categories.
l Example:
All whales live in water (Premise)
All fish live in water, too (Premise)
All fish must be whales. (Conclusion)
l If the conclusion of an argument is not guaranteed by the truth of the premises
then the syllogism is not valid.
l An invalid argument involving categories is called a categorical fallacy.
l In a categorical syllogism, each of the premises states a relationship between the
middle term and one of the others.
How do we explain reasoning though?
The Componential Approach
The componential approach studies reasoning by analyzing a task into its
component cognitive processes. A computer metaphor may be useful here. Those
of you who have done computer programming know that programs can be built
from subroutines, each of which performs a very specific function (such as sorting
a list of numbers or adding a list of numbers). To understand how reasoning
works, we need to figure out if analogous mental subroutines of reasoning exist
and, if so, what they are, when and for how long each is executed, and the
chances of each one’s running without error.
To illustrate, let’s return to the sample analogy given at the beginning of the
chapter: Washington is to one as Jefferson is to what? Sternberg (1977a, 1977b,
1986a, 1986b) studied people’s performance on such problems extensively. He
argued that to fill in the blank, we must perform several mental subroutines or, to
put it more formally, execute a number of component cognitive processes. First
we must encode each of the terms; that is, we must read the words Washington,
one, and Jefferson. We then must recognize these terms, retrieving from memory
the meaning of each term and mentally representing these meanings. Next we
must infer the relationship between the first two terms (often called the A and
the B terms)—in this case, Washington and one. One relationship that comes
immediately to mind is that Washington was the first president of the United
States. The next step is to map the A term and the C term (here, Jefferson)—that
is, find a relationship between them. Jefferson was also a president of the United
States. In the next step, we apply the relationship previously found between the A
and the B terms onto the C term, remembering (if we recall our U.S. history) that
Jefferson was the third president. Thus our answer to the analogy would be three.
Sometimes analogies are provided in multiple-choice format, and in those cases
the answers don’t always fit.
In Sternberg’s theory, each component has associated with it several parameters
that determine, for instance, the probability that it will be used, the amount of
time it will take to execute, and the difficulty of executing it.
Sternberg’s method of estimating these parameters was quite clever. He
presented participants with a number of different verbal and pictorial analogies
(Sternberg, 1977a) on a tachistoscope, and each trial consisted of two parts: (a)
precueing and (b) presentation of the full analogy.
The Rules/Heuristics Approach
A heuristic is a mental shortcut that allows people to quickly make judgments and
solve problems. These mental shortcuts are typically informed by our past
experiences and allow us to act quickly. However, heuristics are really more of a
rule-of-thumb; they don't always guarantee a correct solution.
So how do you determine when to use a heuristic and when to use an algorithm?
When problem-solving, deciding which method to use depends on the need for
either accuracy or speed.
Heuristics are more commonly used in everyday situations, such as figuring out
the best route to get from point A to point B. While you could use an algorithm to
map out every possible route and determine which one would be the fastest, that
would be a very time-consuming process. Instead, your best option would be to
use a route that you know has worked well in the past.
How Heuristics Are Used
Heuristics play important roles in both problem-solving and decision-making, as
we often turn to these mental shortcuts when we need a quick solution.

Here are a few different theories from psychologists about why we rely on
heuristics.

1. Attribute substitution: People substitute simpler but related questions in

place of more complex and difficult questions.
2. Effort reduction: People use heuristics as a type of cognitive laziness to
reduce the mental effort required to make choices and decisions. 2
3. Fast and frugal: People use heuristics because they can be fast and correct
in certain contexts. Some theories argue that heuristics are actually more
accurate than they are biased.

In order to cope with the tremendous amount of information we encounter and

to speed up the decision-making process, our brains rely on these mental
strategies to simplify things so we don't have to spend endless amounts of time
analyzing every detail.
Types of Heuristics

There are many different kinds of heuristics. While each type plays a role in
decision-making, they occur during different contexts. Understanding the types
can help you better understand which one you are using and when.

Availability
The availability heuristic involves making decisions based upon how easy it is to
bring something to mind. When you are trying to make a decision, you might
quickly remember a number of relevant examples. Since these are more readily
available in your memory, you will likely judge these outcomes as being more
common or frequently occurring.
For example, if you are thinking of flying and suddenly think of a number of recent
airline accidents, you might feel like air travel is too dangerous and decide to
travel by car instead. Because those examples of air disasters came to mind so
easily, the availability heuristic leads you to think that plane crashes are more
common than they really are.
Representativeness
The representativeness heuristic involves making a decision by comparing the
present situation to the most representative mental prototype. When you are
trying to decide if someone is trustworthy, you might compare aspects of the
individual to other mental examples you hold. A soft-spoken older woman might
remind you of your grandmother, so you might immediately assume that she is
kind, gentle, and trustworthy.
Affect
The affect heuristic involves making choices that are influenced by the emotions
that an individual is experiencing at that moment. For example, research has
shown that people are more likely to see decisions as having benefits and lower
risks when they are in a positive mood. Negative emotions, on the other hand,
lead people to focus on the potential downsides of a decision rather than the
possible benefits.4
Anchoring
The anchoring bias involves the tendency to be overly influenced by the first bit of
information we hear or learn. This can make it more difficult to consider other
factors and lead to poor choices. For example, anchoring bias can influence how
much you are willing to pay for something, causing you to jump at the first offer
without shopping around for a better deal.
How Heuristics Can Lead to Bias

While heuristics can help us solve problems and speed up our decision-making
process, they can introduce errors. As in the examples above, heuristics can lead
to inaccurate judgments about how commonly things occur and about how
representative certain things may be.

Just because something has worked in the past does not mean that it will work
again, and relying on a heuristic can make it difficult to see alternative solutions or
come up with new ideas.
Heuristics can also contribute to stereotypes and prejudice.5 Because people use
mental shortcuts to classify and categorize people, they often overlook more
relevant information and create stereotyped categorizations that are not in tune
with reality

4.

An algorithm is a defined set of step-by-step procedures that provides the correct

answer to a particular problem. By following the instructions correctly, you are
guaranteed to arrive at the right answer. An algorithm is often expressed in the
form of a graph, where a square represents each step. Arrows then branch off
from each step to point to possible directions that you may take to solve the
problem. In some cases, you must follow a particular set of steps to solve the
problem. In other instances, you might be able to follow different paths that will
all lead to the same solution.
Examples of Algorithms

There are many different examples of how algorithms can be used in daily life.
Some common ones include:

5. A recipe for cooking a particular dish

6. The method a search engine uses to find information on the internet
7. Instructions for how to assemble a bicycle

Reasons to Use Algorithms in Psychology

The upside of using an algorithm to solve a problem or make a decision is that
yields the best possible answer every time. There are situations where using an
algorithm can be the best approach:

8. When accuracy is crucial: This is useful in situations when accuracy is critical

or where similar problems need to be frequently solved. 2 In many cases,
computer programs can be designed to speed up this process. Data then
needs to be placed in the system so that the algorithm can be executed to
come up with the correct solution.
9. When each decision needs to follow the same process: Such step-by-step
approaches can be useful in situations where each decision must be made
following the same process. Because the process follows a prescribed
procedure, you can be sure that you will reach the correct answer each
time.

Pitfalls When Using Algorithms

The downside of using an algorithm to solve the problem is that this process
tends to be very time-consuming. So if you face a situation where a decision
needs to be made very quickly, you might be better off using a different problem-
solving strategy.

For example, an emergency room doctor making a decision about how to treat a
patient could use an algorithm approach. However, this would be very time-
consuming and treatment needs to be implemented quickly. In this instance, the
doctor would instead rely on their expertise and past experiences to very quickly
choose what they feel is the right treatment approach.

10.

The Mental Models Approach

Proponents of the mental models approach deny that reasoning consists of using
special-purpose rules of inference and that reasoning involves specialpurpose
cognitive processes. Philip Johnson-Laird (1982, 1983), a major spokesperson for
the models approach, argued that the processes we use to draw conclusions are
also the ones we use to comprehend language.
Reasoning, for Johnson-Laird, consists of constructing mental models to depict
the premises. Effective reasoning occurs when the reasoner checks to be sure his
or her first idea of what the conclusion might be is assessed by an attempt to
construct alternative models consistent with the premises but inconsistent with
the hypothesized conclusion.
To explore Johnson-Laird’s approach, consider the following syllogism:
Some of the scientists are parents. All of the parents are drivers.” Figure 12-8
offers one interpretation of how these premises might be mentally modeled for
this relatively easy-to-solve reasoning problem. Scientists are depicted as people
holding a flask; drivers, as people standing next to a car; and parents, as people
holding a child. The diagram indicates that some scientists are drivers but
(possibly) some other scientists aren’t drivers (those shown in faded lines) and,
also possibly, some drivers aren’t parents (also rendered in faded lines). Notice
that the two scientists in the middle of the diagram (the ones who aren’t
“optional”) are drivers, leading to the necessarily true conclusion, “Some of the
scientists are drivers.”
Consider another of Johnson-Laird’s syllogisms, this one more difficult to work
with: “All of the beekeepers are artists. None of the chemists are beekeepers.”
You might try this one yourself before reading on. Figure 12-9(A) depicts the
model most people generate first. Notice that no individual is both a chemist and
a beekeeper nor both a chemist and an artist. This depiction would lead one to
conclude, “None of the chemists are artists.” However, if they keep at it, people
may discover other possible depictions, such as the one shown in Figure 12-9(B),
where one artist is a chemist. This depiction means the preceding conclusion
cannot be true. At this point, a reasoner who had constructed both models might
conclude, “Some of the chemists are not artists.” Again, however, another
possibility exists, the one depicted in Figure 12-9(C). Here, all the chemists are
artists, so the last conclusion cannot be valid, either.
Is there no valid conclusion, then? In fact, there is. The one statement true of all
three models is “Some of the artists are not chemists.” In particular, the
beekeeper/artists, necessarily depicted in each model, are not chemists. One
problem with the mental models framework is specifying what information
models contain and what information is omitted. Notice, for instance, that in
Figures 12-8 and 12-9 we did not specify any physical, ethnic, or philosophical
information about the people depicted. How much information the reasoner
chooses to represent and how this decision affects performance are issues that
remain to be investigated.
The construction of a mental model can be considered a creative act. Perkins
(1985) argued that—contrary to stereotype—model building (and therefore good
reasoning) relies on imagination. The more imaginative the process, the more
likely a reasoner is to generate potential counterexamples and avoid drawing
hasty conclusions. Interestingly, this view links reasoning with other kinds of
thinking, helping to explain the apparent links among reasoning, problem solving,
and decision making. In the mental models approach, errors in reasoning derive
from several possible sources. One is the failure to construct relevant models. If
the premises are not presented in an optimal order (for example, in a syllogism, in
the order A-B, B-C), it is harder to construct an integrated representation of both
premises that accurately depicts all the relevant information. If there is a great
deal of extraneous information in the premises, mental resources may be
diverted from the processes needed to selectively represent the essential
information. A second source of error is the failure to assess the implications of all
the models found. For instance, in the previous example, someone might have
decided
that no conclusion relating artists and chemists was valid, overlooking the one
relation shown in all three models. A final and important source of error is the
failure to search for and construct enough models. This accounts for the findings
described earlier—namely, that people often fail to consider enough of the
possibilities allowed by any set of premises.
Types of problems
Inducing Structure
Some problems involve finding relationships between elements.

Example: “Pineapple is to fruit as cabbage is to ___.” In this analogy problem, the

answer, “vegetable,” requires people to figure out the relationship between
“pineapple” and “fruit” and apply a similar relationship to “cabbage.”
Arranging
Other problems involve arranging elements in a way that fulfills certain criteria.

Example: The answer to the problem “Arrange the letters in LEPAP to make the
name of a fruit” is “APPLE.”
Other problems involve making a series of changes to achieve a specific goal, a
process called Transformation.
Example: A familiar riddle describes a situation in which a man has to take his
fox, his chicken, and his tub of grain across a river in a boat. The boat will hold
only him and two of his possessions at any one time. He can’t leave the fox and
the chicken on the riverbank by themselves because the fox will eat the chicken,
and he can’t leave the chicken with the grain because the chicken will eat the
grain. He also can’t take the fox and the chicken in the boat together because the
fox will eat the chicken when he’s occupied with rowing the boat. The same goes
for the chicken and the grain. How will he get all three across? First he takes the
fox and the grain across. He leaves the fox on the opposite bank and takes the
grain back with him. He then leaves the grain on the bank and takes the chicken
across. He leaves the chicken on the opposite bank and takes the fox back with
him to retrieve the grain.
Problem-Solving is the active effort people make to achieve a goal that cannot be
easily attained.
Approaches to Problem Solving
There are many strategies for solving problems, included trial and error,
algorithms, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, heuristics, dialectical
reasoning, forming subgoals, using similar problems, and changing the way the
problem is represented.

Trial and Error

Trial And Error involves trying out different solutions until one works. This type of
strategy is practical only when the number of possible solutions is relatively small.
Example: It’s dark, and a man is trying to figure out which button on the
dashboard of his newly rented car switches on the headlights. He might press all
the available buttons until he finds the right one.
Algorithms
Algorithms are step-by-step procedures that are guaranteed to achieve a
Particular.

Dialectical Reasoning
Dialectical Reasoning is the process of going back and forth between opposing
points of view in order to come up with a satisfactory solution.
Example: A student might use dialectical reasoning when she considers the pros
and cons of choosing psychology as her college major.
Forming Subgoals
Forming subgoals involves coming up with intermediate steps to solve a problem.
This is a way of simplifying a problem.

Example: Susan is asked to solve the analogy problem “Prison is to inmate as

hospital is to ____.” Susan’s subgoal could be to figure out the relationship
between “prison” and “inmate.” Once she achieves this subgoal, she can easily
find the answer, “patient.”

What is language?
Why do you think it’s important for us to understand language?
What are the 3 components of language?
These components are form, content, and use. Form involves three sub-
components of syntax, morphology, and phonology. Content is also known as
semantics and use is also known as pragmatics.
Phonology

The study of speech structure within a language, including both the

patterns of basic speech units and the accepted rules of pronunciation, is known
as phonology.i The smallest units of sound that make up a language are called
phonemes. For example, the word “that” contains three phonemes the “th”
represents one phoneme /th/, the “a” maps to the short a sound /ă/, and the “t”
to its basic sound /t/.

Morphology

Moving to the next level of language, we find the study of the smallest units
of meaning, morphemes. Morphemes include base words, such as “hat,” “dog,” or
“love,” as well as affixes, such as “un-,” “re-,” the plural “s” or “es,” and the past
tense “ed.” Knowledge of the morphology of our language is critical to vocabulary
development and reflects the smallest building blocks for comprehension.

Syntax

The study of how individual words and their most basic meaningful units
are combined to create sentences is known as syntax. As words are grouped
together when we communicate, we must follow the rules of grammar for our
language, in other words, its syntax. It is the knowledge of syntax that allows us to
recognize that the following two sentences, while containing different word order
and levels of complexity, have the same meaning.

 The boy hit the ball.

 The ball was hit by the boy.

Syntax also allows us to accept “I went to the store” as a meaningful

(grammatical) sentence while “To store went I” would not be acceptable English.

Semantics

Not only does the grammatical structure of our language provide the
needed clues for understanding, we also have a wealth of figurative language and
rich description that adds color and nuance to our communication. Semantics
refers to the ways in which a language conveys meaning.ii It is our understanding
of semantics that allows us to recognize that someone who is “green with envy”
has not changed hue, or that “having cold feet” has less to do with the appendage
at the end of our legs and more to do with our anxiety about a new experience.
Because semantics moves beyond the literal meaning of words and is culture-
dependent, this is among the most difficult aspects of language for individuals
who are not native speakers and even those who speak the same language but
come from different cultures and convey meaning using words in unique ways.
Anyone who has attempted to converse with a teenager in his own vernacular can
appreciate the importance of sharing a semantic base for communicating clearly.

Pragmatics

“‘Pragmatics’ refers to the ways the members of the speech community

achieve their goals using language.”iii The way we speak to our parents is not the
same as the way we interact with a sibling, for example. The language used in a
formal speech may bear little resemblance to what we would hear at a lunch with
five friends. The conversational style of day-to-day interactions is quite different
from the language used even when reading a storybook to a toddler. Knowing the
difference and when to use which style is the essence of pragmatics.
i
ii
iii