Unit.5 Thinkingdocx
Unit.5 Thinkingdocx
Unit.5 Thinkingdocx
What are the types of concept formation, and how do individuals develop their
understanding through that?
Concept formation refers to a higher-order mental process that acts on information
that has been perceived through our sensory organs and encoded and stored in memory. This
process includes organization of the information into conceptual categories and the use of
such knowledge in reasoning, problem solving, goal selection, and planning.
As such concept formation is a cognitive process through which
individuals classify information, ideas, objects, or experiences into mental categories based
on shared characteristics or features. This mental process involves identifying common
attributes, abstracting these shared features from specific instances, and generalizing to create
mental categories or concepts. It’s a fundamental aspect of human thinking and learning that
helps us make sense of the world by organizing information into meaningful groups. For
example, when forming the concept of “vehicles,” one identifies shared attributes like the
ability to transport people and goods, and then generalizes this concept to include cars,
bicycles, trucks, and other specific examples that possess those common characteristics.
These categories likely highlight different ways in which individuals acquire and
develop their understanding of the world. While direct experience and indirect experience are
common and reliable sources of concept formation, faulty concepts illustrate instances where
individuals may have misconceptions or incorrect beliefs about a particular concept.
Education and critical thinking play a crucial role in correcting faulty concepts and promoting
accurate understanding.
1. Perception and Observation: Concept formation often begins with the perception
and observation of the external world. Individuals encounter various objects, ideas,
or experiences and begin to notice common characteristics among them. This initial
phase is driven by sensory input and first hand experiences.
2. Identification of Common Attributes: In the next stage, individuals identify the
common attributes or features that are shared among the objects or experiences they
have observed. These attributes serve as the basis for grouping similar items into a
mental category. For instance, when forming the concept of “trees,” common
attributes might include having a trunk, branches, leaves, and roots.
3. Abstraction: After identifying common attributes, the process of abstraction occurs.
This entails mentally extracting and emphasizing these shared features while
disregarding individual differences. This step is crucial for creating a generalized
mental representation of the category.
4. Generalization: Generalization is the act of extending the concept to include a
broad range of specific examples that share the identified common attributes. For
example, the concept of “flowers” may encompass roses, daisies, and tulips, even
though they differ in terms of color, size, and shape, because they share the common
attributes of being plants that produce colourful blooms.
5. Organization and Classification: Concepts are often organized hierarchically
within a cognitive structure. Broader categories encompass more specific
subcategories. This hierarchy allows for efficient cognitive organization and
retrieval. For instance, “animals” may be a broader category that includes
subcategories like “mammals,” “birds,” and “fish.”
6. Refinement and Revision: The process of concept formation is not static but can be
refined and revised as individuals gain more knowledge and experience. New
information may lead to the modification of existing concepts or the creation of new
ones.
7. Language and Communication: Language plays a crucial role in concept
formation. Once concepts are formed, they are given labels or names, which are
represented by words. This enables individuals to communicate and share their
understanding with others, creating a shared knowledge base within a culture.
8. Contextual Variation: It’s important to note that concept formation can be
influenced by cultural and contextual factors. What is considered a concept and how
it is defined can vary across different cultures and situations. Cultural and linguistic
differences may affect the boundaries and attributes of concepts.
9. Development and Learning: The process of concept formation is closely tied to
learning and cognitive development, especially in children. Children gradually
acquire and refine concepts as they grow and gain more exposure to the world.
Overall, the process of concept formation is a fundamental aspect of human cognition and is
crucial for organizing, understanding, and communicating about the complexity of the world
we live in. It enables us to group similar things together, make predictions, and adapt to new
situations by applying our conceptual knowledge.
THEORIES OF CONCEPT FORMATION
What are the key theories explaining concept formation, focusing on the Association
theory and the hypothesis testing theory?
The Association theory: The oldest and most influential theory in concept formation is the
principle of association, also known as associationism. This theory posits that a bond is
formed between two events or objects when they are repeatedly presented together. The
principle of association suggests that learning a concept occurs through the reinforcement of
correct associations and the non-reinforcement of incorrect associations. According to
associationism, a bond is formed between two events or objects when they are repeatedly
presented together. For example, when a red box is repeatedly presented with the label "red
box," a mental association is formed between the stimulus (the red box) and the concept (the
label "red box"). Reinforcement, such as a reward system, can facilitate the formation of this
mental association. Correct pairings of a stimulus with the correct concept label are
reinforced, while incorrect pairings are not reinforced, serving as a form of punishment. For
example, if a red box is correctly labelled as "red box," this association is reinforced.
However, if a red circle is incorrectly labelled as "red box," this association is not reinforced,
serving as a form of punishment.
In conclusion, while associationism provides valuable insights into how associations are
formed between stimuli and concepts through repeated exposure, it offers a limited
perspective on concept formation. Modern cognitive theorists argue that internal cognitive
processes play a significant role in concept formation, influencing how information is
selected, organized, and transformed within the mind.
The hypothesis testing theory suggests that people solve problems and form concepts by
formulating and testing hypotheses. This concept has long been a fundamental idea in
experimental psychology. Bruner, Goodnow, and Austin (1956) applied a hypothesis-testing
model to concept formation in their influential book, "A Study of Thinking," providing a
detailed methodological analysis of how people perform in concept formation tasks. The
initial stage in concept formation involves selecting a hypothesis or strategy that aligns with
the objectives of the inquiry. This process is similar to how a scientist might plan a sequence
of experiments, a lawyer might ask a series of questions, or a doctor might conduct a set of
diagnostic tests. The fundamental question guiding this selection process is, "What is to be
gained by choosing one diagnosis over another?" In a typical concept formation experiment,
researchers present participants with an entire concept universe, which includes all possible
variations of a concept across different dimensions and attributes. Participants are then given
one instance of an exemplar of the concept and are instructed to identify the concept by
selecting other instances from the concept universe. After selecting an instance, participants
are informed whether it is a positive or negative example of the concept. This process
continues until participants successfully identify the concept. Participants may employ
various strategies during concept formation, including:
Simultaneous scanning: Participants start with all possible hypotheses and eliminate the
ones that are not tenable.
Focus gambling: Participants change more than one feature of their hypothesis at a time,
hoping to determine the concept more quickly.
The conservative focusing strategy tends to be the most effective, while scanning techniques
provide only marginal success. However, one challenge with the Bruner model is that it
assumes participants adhere to a single strategy throughout the task. In reality, participants
often vacillate, shifting from one strategy to another as they progress through the task. The
hypothesis testing theory provides valuable insights into how people develop concepts
through a process of formulating and testing hypotheses. By understanding the strategies
people use in concept formation tasks, psychologists gain valuable insights into the cognitive
processes involved in problem-solving and concept formation.
What are the different types of deductive reasoning, and what challenges do individuals
face when using them, particularly with conditional and syllogistic reasoning?
Thinking refers to the general process of considering an issue in the mind, while logic
is the science of thinking or reasoning. Although two people may think about the same thing,
their conclusions both reached through thought may differ, one being logical, the other
illogical. Hence, logic can be described as the study of reasoning, wherein conclusions are
drawn from principles and evidence. In the process of reasoning, one progresses from
established knowledge to derive a new conclusion or assess a suggested one. Reasoning is
commonly categorized into two forms: deductive and inductive reasoning.
Deductive reasoning: Deductive reasoning is the process of reasoning from one or more
general statements regarding what is known to reach a logically certain conclusion. It often
involves reasoning from one or more general statements regarding what is known to a
specific application of the general statement.
Deductive reasoning relies on logical assertions known as propositions, which can either be
true or false. These propositions, such as "Cognitive psychology students are brilliant" or
"Cognitive psychology students like peanut butter," serve as the basis for arguments.
Cognitive psychologists are particularly interested in propositions that can be interconnected
to draw logical conclusions. In essence, deductive reasoning facilitates the linking of
different propositions to reach conclusions. Understanding how individuals connect these
propositions to draw conclusions is a key concern for cognitive psychologists. While some
conclusions are well-founded, others may lack sound reasoning.
Types of deductive reasoning:
For example:
Logicians often employ circle diagrams to visualize class membership, aiding in the
determination of logical soundness. While the conclusion logically follows from the
premises, it is false due to the falsity of the premises.
1. Universal affirmatives: Statements like "All A are B" assert positively about all
members of a class.
2. Universal negatives: Statements that negate all members of a class.
3. Particular affirmatives: Statements that make positive assertions about some members
of a class.
4. Particular negatives: Statements that negate some members of a class.
Inductive Reasoning: Inductive reasoning is the process of reasoning from specific facts or
observations to reach a likely conclusion that may explain the facts. The inductive reasoner
uses this probable conclusion to predict future instances. Unlike deductive reasoning,
inductive reasoning does not lead to logically certain conclusions; instead, it produces well-
founded or probable conclusions.
For instance, if one notice that all students enrolled in cognitive psychology course
are on the dean's list, one might inductively reason that all cognitive psychology students are
excellent students. However, this conclusion cannot be logically proven unless one observe
the grade-point averages of all past and future students. Additionally, a single poor student in
the course could disprove the conclusion. Despite these limitations, after numerous
observations, one may feel confident in one’s inductive reasoning.
The challenge of induction lies in predicting the future when it hasn't occurred yet and
choosing which prediction to make among alternative possibilities. For example, in a number
series like 2, 4, 6, ?, most people would predict 8 as the next number. However, this choice
isn't guaranteed; other patterns could yield different results. We often choose familiar and
simpler patterns because they are easier to grasp.
Inductive reasoning forms the basis of the empirical method, wherein we cannot
logically conclude that all instances of a phenomenon will exhibit a certain characteristic just
because observed instances have shown it. For instance, concluding that all swans are white
based on observed white swans is risky because the next swan could be black. In research,
when we reject the null hypothesis (the hypothesis of no difference), we employ inductive
reasoning. However, we can never be certain if we're correct in rejecting the null hypothesis.
Another error arises when we overlook that many phenomena have multiple causes.
For example, a car accident may result from the negligence of several drivers, not just one.
Once we identify one possible cause, we might stop searching for others—a phenomenon
called a discounting error. Confirmation bias significantly impacts our daily lives. For
instance, if we expect not to like someone, we might treat them differently, leading them to
respond unfavourably, thus confirming our initial belief. This effect, known as a self-
fulfilling prophecy, is evident in schooling as well. When teachers expect little from students
they perceive as having low ability, those students often perform poorly, reinforcing the
teachers' original beliefs.
Categorical inferences: People draw inferences using both bottom-up and top-down
strategies. Bottom-up strategies involve gathering information from sensory experiences and
observing various instances. From these observations, individuals consider the degree of
variability across instances and abstract a prototype or category. Once a prototype or category
is induced, individuals may use focused sampling to add new instances to the category. This
involves focusing on properties that have been useful in making distinctions in the past. Top-
down strategies, on the other hand, involve using existing knowledge or previously inferred
information. This includes selectively searching for consistencies within variations and
selectively combining existing concepts and categories to make inferences.
Research using reaction-time methodology has explored how people solve induction
problems, with findings suggesting that much of the time spent on verbal analogies is in
encoding the terms and responding. Encoding can be particularly challenging in complex
analogies, such as those involving letter reversal or semantic content.
Analogies play a significant role in various domains, including politics. They can help
governing bodies reach decisions and justify them to the public. However, the success of
using analogies is not guaranteed and can vary based on interpretation. For example, during
debates over the war in Afghanistan, opponents drew analogies to Vietnam to argue for
withdrawal, while others used similar analogies to warn of potential consequences.
In everyday life, analogies are used to make predictions about the environment by
connecting perceptions with memories. People draw upon past experiences to anticipate
future outcomes. For instance, predictions about global warming may be influenced by
analogies to historical events when the atmosphere warmed or did not. Ultimately, an
individual's beliefs and decisions can be shaped by the analogies they choose to draw,
highlighting the subjective nature of analogical reasoning.
How do people approach problem-solving, and what are the different strategies
involved, including trial and error, algorithms, heuristics, and insight?
Identify some methods that people use to solve problems and make decisions.
What are some approaches individuals employ to address problems and reach
decisions?
Problem solving occurs when a goal must be reached by thinking and behaving in
certain ways. Problems range from figuring out how to cut a recipe in half to understanding
complex mathematical proofs to deciding what to major in at college. Problem solving is one
aspect of decision making, which is identifying, evaluating, and choosing among several
alternatives. There are various ways people can think to solve problems:
Trial and Error (mechanical solutions): One method is trial and error, also known as a
mechanical solution. Trial and error entails trying different solutions until finding one that
works. For instance, if Shelena forgets her online banking PIN, she might try different
combinations until she discovers the correct one, especially if she has only a few PINs she
typically uses. Mechanical solutions can also involve solving by rote, following a set of
learned rules. This method is akin to how word problems are solved in grade school.
Heuristics: Heuristics are mental shortcuts or "rules of thumb" that people use to make
decisions or solve problems quickly. While algorithms are specific, step-by-step procedures
that always lead to a correct solution given enough time, heuristics are more general and can
help narrow down possible solutions. However, unlike algorithms, heuristics do not always
guarantee the correct answer. One common heuristic is the representativeness heuristic,
which involves assuming that any object or person sharing characteristics with the members
of a particular category belongs to that category. For example, assuming that all people with
dark skin are from Africa is an application of the representativeness heuristic. However, this
heuristic can lead to errors, especially when it ignores base rates or the actual probability of
an event.
Another heuristic is the availability heuristic, which involves estimating the frequency
or likelihood of an event based on how easily relevant information can be recalled from
memory. For instance, if asked to estimate the frequency of words starting with the letter "K"
versus words with "K" as the third letter, people might overestimate the frequency of words
starting with "K" because they are easier to recall.
Despite their potential for error, heuristics can be useful in problem-solving. For
example, working backward from a goal is a heuristic that involves starting with the desired
outcome and determining the steps needed to achieve it. This approach is often used when
planning routes, such as finding the shortest way to get to a new coffee shop. Technology,
such as Internet maps or GPS, has made this process much easier compared to manually
comparing routes on a physical map. However, relying too heavily on technology may hinder
problem-solving skills that come from actively engaging in mental challenges.
Insight: Insight occurs when the solution to a problem suddenly comes to mind, often in the
form of an "aha!" moment. This phenomenon is not unique to humans; even animals like
chimpanzees have demonstrated the ability to solve problems through sudden insight. In
humans, insight often involves realizing that a problem is similar to one already encountered
or recognizing that an object can be used for a different purpose than intended. Insight is not
a magical process, although it may seem that way. Instead, it typically involves the mind
reorganizing a problem, sometimes even when the person is not actively focusing on it. For
example, in the problem of removing a coin from a bottle without removing the cork, the
solution might suddenly become clear: push the cork into the bottle and shake out the coin.
While insight can feel like a sudden revelation, it is a result of the mind's cognitive processes
at work. It involves mental reorganization and often occurs when the problem solver is not
directly focusing on the problem.
The effectiveness of using insight to solve problems isn't always guaranteed. Sometimes, a
solution may seem just beyond reach because either the elements of the problem aren't
arranged correctly, or individuals are hindered by certain habitual ways of thinking that act as
obstacles to problem-solving. These habitual patterns of thinking often operate automatically,
influencing problem-solving attempts without individuals being consciously aware of their
influence. For instance, consider the classic problem of two strings hanging from a ceiling
that are too far apart to be easily tied together by hand. Despite having the necessary tools
nearby, such as pliers on a table, people may struggle to find a solution due to their fixed
perceptions or mental habits. However, by recognizing these automatic tendencies and
becoming consciously aware of them, individuals can discard their old approaches and adopt
more suitable problem-solving methods. Three common barriers to successful problem-
solving and decision making include functional fixedness, mental sets, and confirmation bias.
Functional fixedness: One problem-solving difficulty involves thinking about objects only in
terms of their typical uses, which is a phenomenon called functional fixedness (literally, “fixed
on the function”). Specifically, functional fixedness is the inability to realize that something
known to have a particular use may also be used for performing other functions (German &
Barrett, 2005). Functional fixedness prevents us from solving new problems by using old tools
in novel ways. Becoming free of functional fixedness is what first allowed people to use a
reshaped coat hanger to get into a locked car. It is also what first allowed thieves to pick simple
spring door locks with a credit card.
Mental sets: Functional fixedness is a cognitive bias where individuals tend to approach
problem-solving by relying on familiar methods or solutions that have worked for them in the
past. This tendency often leads them to overlook alternative strategies or possibilities. For
example, when faced with a problem, people typically try solutions that have been successful
previously, even if those solutions may not be the most effective in the current situation.
In the context of the dot problem, individuals might initially attempt to solve it by
following the conventional rule of staying within the lines. However, this approach proves
ineffective because the solution requires thinking beyond the usual boundaries. By extending
the lines beyond the dots, individuals can successfully solve the problem, demonstrating the
need to break away from conventional thinking patterns.
The following are the steps involved in the problem-solving cycle, which encompass
problem identification, problem definition, strategy formulation, organization of information,
resource allocation, monitoring, and evaluation.
3. Strategy Formulation: After defining the problem, the next step is to plan a strategy for
solving it. This may involve analysing or synthesizing information, as well as engaging in
divergent and convergent thinking. Strategies are developed to address the problem
effectively.
5. Resource Allocation: As most problems involve limited resources such as time, money,
and equipment, allocating resources effectively is crucial. Expert problem solvers tend to
focus more on global planning, while novices may allocate more time to local planning.
Planning ahead helps avoid errors and false starts.
6. Monitoring: Effective problem solvers continuously monitor their progress toward solving
the problem. They check their approach along the way, making adjustments if necessary. For
example, when writing a term paper, monitoring progress ensures that one is on track to meet
deadlines and goals.
7. Evaluation: After reaching a solution, it's important to evaluate its effectiveness. This
includes revising and editing, as well as recognizing new problems or opportunities for
improvement. Evaluation leads to new insights and strategies, completing the problem-
solving cycle and potentially initiating a new cycle.
What are the key theories explaining intelligence and its different aspects, and how do
they contribute to our understanding of cognitive abilities?
Intelligence is the ability to learn from one’s experiences, acquire knowledge, and
use resources effectively in adapting to new situations or solving problems. In other words,
intelligence is the capacity to learn from experience, using metacognitive processes to
enhance learning, and the ability to adapt to the surrounding environment.
Several theories offer different explanations of the nature and number of intelligence-
related abilities:
Traditional IQ tests primarily measure the g factor, as they assess general cognitive
abilities. Spearman argued that excellence in one area of intelligence tends to predict overall
superiority in intelligence. However, some researchers, such as Guilford and Thurstone,
criticized Spearman's theory for oversimplifying the concept of intelligence. Instead of
viewing intelligence as a single entity, these critics proposed that it consists of multiple
factors. For instance, Guilford suggested that there are as many as 120 different types of
intelligence. This perspective challenged the notion of a single, overarching g factor and
emphasized the diversity and complexity of human cognitive abilities.
1. Verbal Comprehension: This factor relates to the understanding of written and spoken
language and is typically measured using vocabulary tests.
2. Verbal Fluency: Verbal fluency refers to the ability to produce words fluently and
quickly, often assessed through tasks where individuals are required to generate
words starting with a specific letter within a time limit.
3. Inductive Reasoning: This factor involves the ability to identify patterns and make
generalizations based on observed data, often assessed through tasks such as
analogies or number-series completion.
4. Spatial Visualization: Spatial visualization refers to the ability to mentally manipulate
and rotate visual images, commonly assessed through tasks that require individuals to
mentally rotate objects or shapes.
5. Number: Number ability relates to numerical reasoning and problem-solving skills,
typically assessed through computation and basic mathematical problem-solving
tasks.
6. Memory: Memory ability encompasses the capacity to store and retrieve information,
often assessed through tasks involving the recall of pictures or words.
7. Perceptual Speed: Perceptual speed involves the ability to quickly and accurately
perceive and process visual information, commonly assessed through tasks that
require individuals to identify small differences in pictures or rapidly scan and
identify specific characters in strings of letters.
Guildford SOI Theory: J.P. Guilford proposed the Structure of Intellect (SOI) model as a
departure from Charles Spearman's single-factor model of intelligence. The SOI model
presents a more complex understanding of intelligence, suggesting that it can be
conceptualized through a multidimensional framework.
1. Analytical Intelligence: This refers to the ability to analyze and solve problems by
breaking them down into component parts. It encompasses traditional academic skills and is
typically measured by intelligence tests and academic achievement tests. Analytical
intelligence is often associated with "book smarts."
2. Creative Intelligence: Creative intelligence involves the ability to generate novel and
innovative ideas, think divergently, and solve problems in unconventional ways. It
encompasses creativity and originality in problem-solving. Creative intelligence allows
individuals to approach problems from new perspectives and develop unique solutions.
These three types of intelligence can be illustrated in various contexts. For example,
when planning and completing an experiment:
John Carroll further developed the theory by conducting extensive factor analyses of
data from numerous studies, resulting in a three-tier hierarchical model of cognitive abilities.
This model aligned closely with the concepts of crystallized and fluid intelligence proposed
by Cattell and Horn, leading to the formulation of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory of
Intelligence. One key aspect of the CHC framework is the concept of general intelligence (g),
which serves as an overarching factor. Additionally, the CHC theory includes 16 broad
abilities, encompassing various cognitive domains such as fluid reasoning, short-term
memory, long-term storage and retrieval, processing speed, reaction and decision speed, and
psychomotor speed.
Several abilities within the CHC framework are based on Cattell's concept of
crystallized intelligence, such as comprehension-knowledge, domain-specific knowledge,
reading and writing, and quantitative knowledge. Other abilities are linked to sensory systems
and their corresponding brain regions, including visual processing, auditory processing,
olfactory abilities, tactile abilities, kinaesthetic abilities, and psychomotor abilities. Overall,
the CHC Theory of Intelligence provides a comprehensive and structured framework for
understanding the diverse array of cognitive abilities and their interrelationships, offering
insights into the nature and structure of human intelligence.
CREATIVITY
For example, while convergent thinking can be used to identify similarities between a
pencil and a pen based on their shared features, such as being used for writing and having
similar shapes, creativity may be necessary to envision alternative uses or innovative designs
for these objects. As such, creativity involves thinking outside the box, exploring new
possibilities, and generating original ideas or solutions, making it a valuable skill for tackling
complex or ambiguous problems.
1. Automatic Task Engagement: Highly creative individuals often experience their most
productive divergent thinking periods while engaged in automatic or routine tasks like
walking or swimming. These tasks occupy some attention processes, allowing the mind to
engage in creative thinking with fewer inhibitions.
3. Less Prone to Mental Blocks: Divergent thinkers are less likely to be hindered by barriers
to problem-solving such as functional fixedness. They are more inclined to consider
unconventional solutions to challenges, even in seemingly mundane situations like being
caught in the rain without an umbrella.
Contrary to popular belief, creative people are often quite ordinary. According to
Csikszentmihalyi (1997):
1. Creative people usually have a broad range of knowledge about a lot of subjects and
are good at using mental imagery.
2. Creative people aren’t afraid to be different—they are more open to new experiences
than many people, and they tend to have more vivid dreams and daydreams than
others do.
3. Creative people value their independence.
4. Creative people are often unconventional in their work, but not otherwise.