Psychology: Cognition: Problem Solving and Decision Making
How people use strategies, shortcuts, and evidence to choose and solve
Psychology: Cognition: Problem Solving and Decision Making
How people use strategies, shortcuts, and evidence to choose and solve
Psychology - Grade 9-12
- 1
A student needs to find the combination to a 3-digit lock. The student tries every possible combination from 000 to 999 in order until the lock opens. Identify the problem-solving strategy being used and explain one strength and one weakness of this strategy.
Think about whether the strategy is guaranteed to work or just likely to work.
The student is using an algorithm because they are following a step-by-step method that will eventually test every possible answer. A strength is that it guarantees a solution if the lock works and the student continues. A weakness is that it can take a long time and require a lot of effort. - 2
A doctor hears that a patient has a cough and immediately assumes it is a common cold because colds are very frequent in the community. The doctor does not first test for less common illnesses. Identify the mental shortcut being used and explain how it can help or hurt decision making.
A heuristic is a quick rule of thumb that may not always lead to the best answer.
The doctor is using a heuristic, specifically a shortcut based on what is common or likely. This can help decision making by saving time when a condition is very probable. It can hurt decision making if the doctor overlooks important evidence for a less common but more serious illness. - 3
Maya believes that students who listen to music while studying always do worse on tests. She searches online for articles that support her belief and ignores studies showing mixed results. Name the bias shown in this example and explain how Maya could reduce it.
Focus on what kind of evidence Maya accepts and what kind she ignores.
Maya is showing confirmation bias because she is looking for information that supports what she already believes and ignoring information that challenges it. She could reduce the bias by intentionally looking for reliable evidence on both sides and comparing the quality of the studies. - 4
A group is asked to solve a puzzle that requires using a paper clip as a tool. They only think of the paper clip as something that holds papers together, so they fail to solve the puzzle. Identify the obstacle to problem solving and explain it.
The obstacle is functional fixedness. The group is focusing only on the usual function of the paper clip and not considering that it could be used in a new way as a tool. - 5
A basketball player always practices free throws the same way. During a game, the player keeps using that routine even though the gym is louder and the timing is different. The routine no longer helps, but the player keeps relying on it. Identify the problem-solving obstacle and explain why it occurs.
This obstacle involves getting stuck on a familiar strategy.
The obstacle is mental set. The player is relying on a strategy that worked in the past, even though the current situation requires adjustment. Mental set occurs when previous success makes a person less flexible in choosing a new approach. - 6
A news report says, "This medication has a 90% survival rate." Another report says, "This medication has a 10% death rate." Both statements describe the same data, but people react more positively to the first report. Identify the decision-making effect shown and explain why it matters.
The key issue is how the information is worded.
This is the framing effect. People respond differently depending on how the same information is presented, even when the facts are identical. It matters because wording can influence choices about health, money, and risk. - 7
After seeing several videos about airplane crashes, Jordan becomes afraid to fly even though car travel is statistically more dangerous per mile. Identify the bias or heuristic affecting Jordan's judgment and explain it.
Jordan is affected by the availability heuristic. Airplane crashes feel more likely because vivid examples are easy to remember, especially after watching videos. This can cause Jordan to overestimate rare events. - 8
A person meets one very friendly dog and concludes that all dogs are friendly. Identify the reasoning error and explain why the conclusion is weak.
Consider the size and representativeness of the evidence.
The person is making an overgeneralization from a small sample. One friendly dog is not enough evidence to make a strong conclusion about all dogs because the sample is too limited and may not represent the whole group. - 9
A store first shows a jacket priced at $300, then marks it down to $180. Many customers see $180 as a good deal because they compare it to the first price. Identify the bias involved and explain how it affects decisions.
Look for the first number that influences later judgment.
This example shows anchoring. The original $300 price becomes a reference point, or anchor, that influences how customers judge the $180 price. The anchor may make the sale price seem better even if the jacket is still expensive compared with similar jackets. - 10
A family has already spent $60 on movie tickets, but everyone feels sick and tired before the movie starts. They go anyway because they do not want the money to be wasted. Identify the decision-making error and explain what a more rational decision would consider.
The family is showing the sunk cost fallacy. They are letting money already spent control their decision, even though that money cannot be recovered. A more rational decision would consider whether going to the movie now will actually benefit them compared with resting at home. - 11
Use expected value to compare these two choices. Choice A gives a 100% chance of winning $20. Choice B gives a 50% chance of winning $50 and a 50% chance of winning $0. Which choice has the higher expected value, and what is it?
Expected value equals each outcome multiplied by its probability, then added together.
Choice A has an expected value of $20 because the outcome is $20 with 100% probability. Choice B has an expected value of $25 because 0.50 times $50 plus 0.50 times $0 equals $25. Choice B has the higher expected value. - 12
A team brainstorming ways to reduce cafeteria waste lists every idea without judging them at first. Later, they choose the most practical ideas. Identify the two types of thinking used in this process and explain each one.
The team uses divergent thinking when they list many possible ideas without judging them. They use convergent thinking when they narrow the list and choose the most practical solutions. - 13
A student says, "I knew I would get that question wrong," after seeing the correct answer on a test. Before the test, the student had not predicted that question would be difficult. Identify the bias and explain why it can distort learning.
This bias is sometimes called the "I knew it all along" effect.
The student is showing hindsight bias. After learning the answer, the student feels as if the outcome was obvious all along. This can distort learning because the student may not accurately judge what they truly understood before seeing the answer. - 14
A class is choosing a fundraiser. The first student suggests selling 5,000 raffle tickets. Later suggestions are much lower, but the class still chooses a number much higher than usual because the first suggestion influenced them. Identify the bias and explain one way the class could reduce it.
The class is affected by anchoring because the first suggestion of 5,000 tickets influenced later judgments. They could reduce anchoring by researching past fundraisers, asking students to write estimates privately before discussion, or comparing several realistic options before choosing. - 15
A jury hears a dramatic eyewitness story and gives it more weight than DNA evidence that is more reliable but less emotional. Identify the decision-making problem and explain how critical thinking could improve the decision.
Strong emotions can make some evidence feel more convincing than it really is.
The jury is giving too much weight to vivid, emotional evidence and not enough weight to more reliable scientific evidence. Critical thinking could improve the decision by evaluating the accuracy, reliability, and relevance of each type of evidence instead of relying on emotional impact.