Lecture 3 The cognitive continuum

1. Lecture 3The cognitive continuum Dr Carl Thompson, University of York

2. Cognitive continuum (cf. Hammond, Hamm, Dowie 1963-2002) ‘pure’ scientific experiment Control trial & statistics Quasi experiment with relaxed controls + Time, Visibility Of process - good Task Structure poor System aided judgement Peer aided judgement intuition Dr Carl Thompson, University of York intuition Analysis

3. INTUITION Quality Of Analysis Quality Of intuition ANALYSIS Definition of concepts Specification of relationships Measurement of magnitudes Least Precise/ explicit most Precise/ explicit MODE “7” 6 5 4 3 2 1 KNOWLEDGE non- clinical expert descriptive case randomised scientific GENERATION cognitive judgement consensus (positive) control controlled experiment “judgement” judgement model study trial DECISION non-cognitive clinical expert decision MAKING “decision” judgement consensus (normative) decision model Dr Carl Thompson, University of York © dowie2002

4. 5 premises • Cognition moves on an intuitive-analytical continuum • Quasi-rationality is the middle ground in a cognitive continuum • Cognitive (judgement and decision) tasks move along a continuum parallel to cognition itself • Cognition moves along the intuitive-analytical continuum as a function of time • Cognition is selectively capable of relying on pattern recognition and on the use of functional relations conditional upon task characteristics Dr Carl Thompson, University of York

5. INTUITION QUASI RATIONALITY ANALYSIS CHARACTERISTICS RAPID INFO PROCESSING SIMULTANEOUS CUE USE JUDGEMENT PROCESS NOT RETRACEABLE HIGH CONFIDENCE IN OUCOIME LOW CONFIDENCE IN PROCESS ERRORS NORMALLY DISTRIBUTED INCONSISTENT (LOW COGNITIVE CONTROL) LOW COGNITIVE EFFORT NEEDED LEADS TO INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT RELIANCE ON PICTORIAL/NON VERBAL CUES RAW CUE DATA/EVENTS STORED IN MEMORY RESISTANT TO NEW CUES CUES EVALUATED AT PERCEPTUAL LEVEL WEIGHTED AVERAGE ORGANISING PRINCIPLE SLOW INFO PROCESS SEQUENTIAL CUE USE JUDGEMNENT PROCESS RETRACEABLE LOGICAL RULES AVAILABLE AND USED LOW CONFIDENCE IN OUTCOME HIGH CONFIDENCE IN PROCESS ERRORS FEW, BUT LARGE WHEN THEY OCCUR CONSITENT (HIGH COGNITIVE CONTROL) LEADS TO RESOLVABLE CONFLICT RELIANCE ON QUANTITATIVE CUES COMPLEX ORGAINSING PRINCIPLES STORED IN MEMORY RESPONSIVE TO NEW CUES CUES EVALUATED AT MEASUREMENT LEVEL TASK SPECIFIC ORGAINSING PRINCIPLE INVOLVES ASPECTS OF BOTH POLES OF THE CONTINUUM – A BLEND. WE TEND TO OPERATE IN THIS REGION OF THE CONTINUUM IN DAILY LIFE. QUASI RATIONALITY MAY BE MORE OR LESS ANALYTICAL OR INTUIIVE DEPENDING ON THE RELATIVE MIX OF INTUITIVE AND ANALYTICAL CHARACTERISTICS DEMANDED BY THE INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT Dr Carl Thompson, University of York

6. PREMISE 2:Quasi rationality is the middle ground in the cognitive continuum • Six points of diversity within ‘quasi rationality’: • Cognitive method – from intuition to analysis • Feasibility – of using each mode of cognition • Degree of control – from intervention to representation • Potential for interpersonal conflict – low (analysis) high (intuition) • Covertness – more intuition more covertness • Correspondence vs. coherence – intuition emphasises correspondence, analysis emphasises coherence Dr Carl Thompson, University of York

7. INDUCING INTUITION INDUCING QUASI RATIONALITY INDUCING ANALYSIS CHARACTERISTICS COMPLEXITY OF TASK STRUCTURE JUDGEMENT SCALE HAS MANY ALTERNATIVES/STEPS TO SOLUTION LARGE N (>5) CUES DISPLAYED SIMULTANEOUSLY JIGH REDUNDANCY AMONGST CUES CONITUOS HIGHLY VARIABLE CUE VALUE DISTRIBUTIONS EQUAL WEIGHTING OF CUES IN ECOLOGY LINEAR RELATIONS BETWEEN CUES AND CRITERION AMBIGUITY OF TASK CONTENT ORGANISING PRINCIPLE UNAVAILABLE TASK OUTCOME NOT AVAILABLE UNFAMILAR TASK CONTENT NO FEEDFORWARD/MINIMAL FEEDBACK HIGH ACCURACY UNLIKELY FORM OF TASK PRESENTATION A POSTERIORI TASK AND COGNITIVE DECOMPOSITION CONTINUOUS CUE DATA PICTORIAL CUE DEFINITIONS, PERCEPTUALLY MEASURED BRIEF TIME AVAILABLE FOR JUDGEMENT OR DECISION COMPLEXITY OF TASK STRUCTURE JUDGEMENT SCALE HAS FEW ALTERNATIVES/STEPS TO SOLUTION SMALL N (2-4) CUES DISPLAYED SIMULTANEOUSLY LOW REDUNDANCY AMONGST CUES DICHOTOMOUS OR DISCRETE CUES DISTRIBUTIONS UNKNOWN UNEQUAL WEIGHTING OF CUES IN ECOLOGY NON LINEAR RELATIONS BETWEEN CUES AND CRITERION AMBIGUITY OF TASK CONTENT ORGANISING PRINCIPLEREADILY UNAVAILABLE TASK OUTCOME READILY AVAILABLE FAMILAR TASK CONTENT FEEDFORWARD AND FEEDBACK HIGH ACCURACY LIKELY FORM OF TASK PRESENTATION A PRIORI TASK AND COGNITIVE DECOMPOSITION DICHOTOMOUS OR DISCRETE CUE DATA QUANTITATVE CUE DEFINITIONS, OBJECTIVELY MEASURED LONG TIME AVAILABLE FOR JUDGEMENT OR DECISION TASKS WHICH INDUCE QUASI RATIONALITY WILL SHOW A MIXTURE OF INTUITION-INDUCING ELEMENTS AS WELL AS ANALYSIS INDUCING ELEMENTS. RELATIVE BALANCE IN THE MIXTURE WILL PREDICT THE POLE TOWARD WHICH COGNITION WOULD MOVE Dr Carl Thompson, University of York

8. Premise 4:Cognition moves along the intuitive-analytical continuum as a function of time Cognitive activities may move along the intuitive-analytic continuum over time; as they do, the relative contributions of intuitive and analytical components to quasi-rationality will change. Successful cognition inhibits movement, failure stimulates it. (Hammond 1980 p72) Dr Carl Thompson, University of York

9. activity • Think of two ‘very different’ (qualitatively I.e. they feel different) but common decisions you face in clinical practice • Try and describe (for each, on paper) the: • Complexity of task structure (number of cues; if they are redundant; any organising principle?) • Ambiguity of task content (availability of organising principle; familiarity of what task content; possibility of accuracy) • Form of task presentation (task decomposition; cue definition; permitted or implied response time). • Think about which mode of cognition you SHOULD use for the problem and which you ACTUALLY use in practice – what’s the impact of social factors? Dr Carl Thompson, University of York