Psy 803: Higher Order Cognitive Processes Fall 2012 Lecture Tu 1:50-4:40 PM, Room: G346 Giltner

Transcription

1 Psy 803: Higher Order Cognitive Processes Fall 2012 Lecture Tu 1:50-4:40 PM, Room: G346 Giltner 1 Instructor Instructor: Dr. Timothy J. Pleskac Office: 282A Psychology Building Phone: pleskact@msu.edu Office Hours: Tu/Th 10:30 AM to 12:00 PM, or by appointment 2 Course Resources Course Website: Angel. All class materials, including this syllabus, will be posted there. Please use ANGEL to upload your lab reports and final projects. 3 Course Description & Goals This course focuses on how individuals think, categorize, judge, and decide. What that means is that we will study thinking from the point of how information is stored, represented, and then used and manipulated to achieve a goal or a set of goals. Increase your understanding of cognitive science. Learn basic principles and methodology useful for studying cognition across a wide range of situations. I would like you to gain a fuller appreciation of formal cognitive models. 4 Prerequisites In day to day activities, I will assume that you have a background equivalent to 1. Mastery of the content of a graduate statistics and experimental design course. 2. Comfort with advanced topics in algebra and basic principles of probability theory. If you feel uncomfortable with these topics and wish to take the course please see me. 3. Either an undergraduate course in cognitive psychology or serious experience with cognitive issues in another discipline, such as neuroscience, animal behavior and cognition, artificial intelligence, linguistics, philosophy of mind, cultural anthropology, behavioral accounting, or education. If you do not have this particular necessary background, I recommend that you drop the course, acquire the prerequisite background, and take the course another time. I like to have a wide range of backgrounds among the students. However, a student who has an otherwise interesting background but no understanding of cognitive science will not be able to apply his or her background in an effective way and will always be trying to catch up on the fundamentals that Im taking for granted.

2 5 Grading Exams 50% There will be 2 exams. The first exam will be in class. The second exam will be a take home exam. Quizzes 25% At the beginning of each class, there may be a pop quiz. I expect there will be 6 to 8 quizzes of this nature. The quiz will be 3 or 4 short answer questions based on last weeks class, the readings for the current class, as well as past readings and classes. At the end of the semester, I will drop the lowest quiz score. Class Participation 25% Everybody will be expected to come to class having read the relevant research articles and being prepared to participate in class. Students are expected to participate energetically in all class activities. Don t sit there like a lump its boring! Reading assignments are listed in the course schedule below. Complete each reading assignment before the date for which it is listed. It is absolutely imperative that you keep current in your reading (better yet, keep ahead read early, read often). 6 Make-up exam/quiz policy I give make-up exams only for University sanctioned reasons. Please consult the University Student handbook. Notes from doctors and funeral homes are required when applicable (these are easily obtainable if your excuse is legitimate). No make-ups will be given for quizzes and in class assignments. 7 Note to Disabled Students Any student in this course who has a disability that may prevent him or her from fully demonstrating his or her abilities should contact me personally as soon as possible so we can discuss accommodations necessary to ensure full participation and facilitate your educational opportunities. 8 Academic Misconduct Honesty is a fundamental precept in all academic activities and those privileged to be members of a university community have a special obligation to observe the highest standards of honesty and a right to expect the same standards of others. Academic misconduct in any form is inimical to the purposes and functions of the university and therefore is unacceptable and rigorously proscribed. If you have questions about what constitutes academic misconduct, contact me.

3 9 Class Schedule Readings may be adjusted or changed based on the progress of the class. 9/4/2012 Some Basics (Anderson, 1990; Newell, 1973) 9/11/2012 Similarity & Generalizability (Shepard, 1987; Tversky, 1977; Sloman & Rips, 1998) 9/18/2012 Concepts & Categories (Murphy, 2002; Knowlton & Squire, 1993; Nosofsky & Zaki, 1998) 9/25/2012 Concepts & Categories (Rosch & et al., 1976; Medin et al., 2006; Love & Gureckis, 2007) 10/2/2012 Induction & Structure of Knowledge (Anderson & Schooler, 1991; Kemp & Tenenbaum, 2008; Holyoak, 2008) 10/9/2012 Bayesian Models of Cognition (Tenenbaum, Kemp, Griffiths, & Goodman, 2011; Griffiths, Chater, Kemp, Perfors, & Tenenbaum, 2010; Jones & Love, 2011) 10/16/2012 Exam I (in class) 10/23/2012 Judgment (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974; Kahneman & Tversky, 1973; Gigerenzer, 1996; Kahneman & Tversky, 1996) 10/30/2012 Judgment: Process (Sloman, 1996; Dougherty, Gettys, & Ogden, 1999; Erev, Wallsten, & Budescu, 1994) 11/6/2012 Judgment: Inference (Gigerenzer, 2004; Griffiths & Tenenbaum, 2006; Schooler & Hertwig, 2005; Goldstein & Gigerenzer, 2002) 11/13/2012 Decision (Coombs, Dawes, & Tversky, 1970; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Hertwig, Barron, Weber, & Erev, 2004) 11/20/2012 no class 11/27/2012 Decision: Process (Busemeyer & Johnson, 2004; Stewart, Chater, & Brown, 2006; Tsetsos, Usher, & Chater, 2010; Hotaling, Busemeyer, & Li, 2010) 12/4/2012 Rationality (Stanovich & West, 2000; Simon, 1990, 1989) 12/11/2012 Exam II Due (5 pm) (take home)

4 References Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought (ch 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Anderson, J. R., & Schooler, L. J. (1991). Reflections of the environment in memory. Psychological Science, 2 (6), Busemeyer, J., & Johnson, J. G. (2004). Computational models of decision making. In D. K.. N. Harvey (Ed.), Handbook of judgment and decision making (p ). Blackwell Publishing Co. Coombs, C. H., Dawes, R. M., & Tversky, A. (1970). Mathematical psychology: An elementary introduction ch 5. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Dougherty, M. R. P., Gettys, C. F., & Ogden, E. E. (1999). Minerva-dm: A memory processes model for judgments of likelihood. Psychological Review, 106 (1), Erev, I., Wallsten, T. S., & Budescu, D. V. (1994). Simultaneous over- and underconfidence: The role of error in judgment processes. Psychological Review, 101 (3), Gigerenzer, G. (1996). On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to kahneman and tversky. Psychological Review, 103 (3), Gigerenzer, G. (2004). Fast and frugal heuristics: The tools of bounded rationality. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (p ). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109 (1), Griffiths, T. L., Chater, N., Kemp, C., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2010). Probabilistic models of cognition: Exploring representations and inductive biases. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2006). Optimal predictions ineveryday cognition. Psychological Science, 17, Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15 (8), Holyoak, K. J. (2008). Induction as model selection. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of The United States Of America, 105 (31), Hotaling, J. M., Busemeyer, J. R., & Li, J. Y. (2010). Theoretical developments in decision field theory: Comment on tsetsos, usher, and chater (2010). Psychological Review, 117 (4), Jones, M., & Love, B. C. (2011). Bayesian fundamentalism or enlightenment? on the explanatory status and theoretical contributions of bayesian models of cognition. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 34, Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, Vol. 80 (4), Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47 (2), Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review, 103 (3), Kemp, C., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2008). The discovery of structural form. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105 (31), Knowlton, B. J., & Squire, L. R. (1993). The learning of categories - parallel brain systems for item memory and category knowledge. Science, 262 (5140), Love, B. C., & Gureckis, T. M. (2007). Models in search of a brain. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7 (2), Medin, D. L., Ross, N. O., Atran, S., Cox, D., Coley, J., Proffitt, J. B., & Blok, S. (2006). Folkbiology of freshwater fish. Cognition, 99 (3), Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts (ch 1-3). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

5 Newell, A. (1973). You cant play 20 questions with nature and win: Projetive comments on the papers of this symposium. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing. New York, NY: Academic Press. Nosofsky, R., & Zaki, S. (1998). Dissociations between categorization and recognition in amnesic and normal individuals: An exemplar-based interpretation. Psychological Science, 9, Rosch, E., & et al. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8 (3), Schooler, L. J., & Hertwig, R. (2005). How forgetting aids heuristic inference. Psychological Review, 112 (3), Shepard, R. N. (1987). Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237 (4820), Simon, H. A. (1989). Cognitive architecutres and rational analysis: Comment (Tech. Rep.). Carnegie Mellon University. Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119 (1), Sloman, S. A., & Rips, L. J. (1998). Similarity as an explanatory construct. Cognition, 65, Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 23 (5), Stewart, N., Chater, N., & Brown, G. D. A. (2006). Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psychology, 53 (1), Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. D. (2011). How to grow a mind: statistics, structure and abstraction. Science, 331, Tsetsos, K., Usher, M., & Chater, N. (2010). Preference reversal in multiattribute choice. Psychological Review, 117 (4), Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84 (4), Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185 (4157),