Michelle B. Cowley-Cunningham (nee Cowley)

Each day people are presented with circumstances that may require speculation. Scientists may ponder questions such as why a star is born or how rainbows are made, psychologists may ask social questions such as why people are prejudiced, and military strategists may imagine what the consequences of their actions might be. Speculations may lead to the generation of putative explanations called hypotheses. But it is by checking if hypotheses accurately reflect the encountered facts that lead to sensible behaviour demonstrating a true understanding. If evidence shows a hypothesis to be false, then people should rationally abandon it, especially if there are negative consequences. The aim of this thesis is to examine how effectively people search for evidence in their hypothesis testing to test whether or not their hypotheses are true or false in competitive games. Research findings from six studies of hypothesis testing behaviour in competitive deductive tasks are explored. Chapter by chapter the thesis tests how everyday people, and master chess players, tackle hypothesis testing in mathematical tasks, such as how to solve sequential number sequence puzzles when thinking about an opponent, or how to solve chess problems in a variety of contexts. The implications of the results are discussed in light of aspects of general cognition: such as reasoning, social hypothesis testing and planning.

The Republic of Ireland is introducing major human rights-based reform to its mental health laws. This paper outlines the new legal landscape in which psychologists must operate against the backdrop of present day effects of Ireland’s dark legacy of institutionalisation. A rights-based approach aims to positively transform mental health service delivery and we advocate for person-centred treatments as the ‘new normal’. We summarise the recent advocacy work undertaken by the Psychological Society of Ireland’s Special Interest Group in Human Rights & Psychology. Finally, we present an innovative best practice case promoting future rights-based delivery via the Socio-Ecological Model of Health – Kyrie Farm. Keywords: UNCRPD; Assisted Decision Making Act 2015 (ADMA) in the Rep. of Ireland; The Socio-Ecological Model of Health.

The Psychological Society of Ireland’s (PSI) response to the call from the United Nations (UN) Committee on the Rights of the Child: Draft General Comment No. 26 Calls for comment on the draft general comment on children’s rights and the environment with a special focus on climate change III. ‘Specific rights of the Convention as they relate to the environment’, B. The right to the highest attainable standard of health (art. 24), 27. … children’s current and anticipated psychosocial, emotional and mental health problems and suffering caused by environmental harm. The PSI wishes to express sincere thanks to the Society’s Special Interest Group in Human Rights and Psychology, particularly Dr Michelle Cowley-Cunningham, Dr Elaine Rogers, and Ms Alexis Carey, who coordinated the following response on behalf of the Society. 1. Environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity, and climate change impact children’s human rights and present a serious threat to future generations’ enjoyment of human rights. Distressingly, 1.7 million children lose their lives annually as a result of avoidable environmental impacts, while millions more are impacted by disease, displaced from their homes and miss out on receiving education1. The PSI Special Interest Group in Human Rights and Psychology (SIGHRP) is grateful to the Committee on the Rights of the Child for this opportunity to submit a stakeholder comment in advance of the drafting of the Draft General Comment No. 26. SIGHRP is appreciative of the work of the Committee in monitoring the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and welcomes the Committee's stakeholder call for ideas to aid the development of policies, both domestically and internationally, to address critical climate change issues. Specifically, SIGHRP welcomes the opportunity to comment on the connection between child and adolescent mental health and human rights obligations, and advocates for policies and initiatives to address this issue in the context of climate change.

In response to the International Union of Psychological Sciences (IUPsyS) call for member organisations to ‘contribute ideas on the IUPsyS responses in crises and emergencies’, the Psychological Society of Ireland (PSI), through guidance from the PSI Special Interest Group in Human Rights and Psychology (SIGHRP),proposed a set of human rights-based recommendations to aid the IUPsyS policy mission for actions moving forward. This article speaks to the reasoning behind the rights-based framework, reprints the framework in full, and details the summary of the stakeholder consultation.

According to the mental model theory, causes and enablers differ in meaning, and therefore in their logical consequences (Goldvarg & Johnson-Laird, 2001). They are consistent with different possibilities. Recent psychological studies have argued to the contrary, and suggested that linguistic cues guide this distinction (Kuhnmünch & Beller, 2005). The issue is important because neither British nor American law recognizes this distinction (e.g., Roberts & Zuckerman, 2004). Yet, in our view, it is central to human conceptions of causality. Hence, in two experiments, we examined our participants’ ability to distinguish between causes and enablers in scenarios describing the actions of two agents and a subsequent outcome, e.g.: ‘Mary threw a lighted cigarette into a bush. Just as the cigarette was going out, Laura deliberately threw petrol on it. The resulting fire burnt down her neighbor’s house.’ Here Mary enabled the fire to occur, whereas Laura caused the fire to occur.

This notebook presents an introductory overview to the cognitive perspective on the psychology of human behaviour for social science students. Starting with an introduction to cognitive developmental theories of how babies reason, the overview then moves to discuss how children develop into better thinkers. Adult theories of cognition are subsequently outlined and critically evaluated. A chronology of topics include: the rise of 'this thing we call cognition', Piaget's theory of cognitive development and its evaluation, problem space theory, and theories of mental representation in adult thought examining, amongst other types of thinking and reasoning, deduction and induction and an evaluation of mental representation theories.

This summary note series outlines legal empirical approaches to the study of juries and jury decision-making behaviour for undergraduate students of sociology, criminology and legal systems, and forensic psychology. The note series is divided into two lectures. The first lecture attends to the background relevant to the historical rise of juries and socio-legal methodologies used to understand jury behaviour. The second lecture attends to questions surrounding jury competence, classic studies illustrative of juror bias, and a critical comparison of juries to legal alternatives not reliant on jury deliberation for judicial process. Where appropriate the note series indicates key readings relevant to each core component of the note series, for students to develop their understanding in self-study time.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a detailed technical protocol analysis of chess masters' evaluative expertise, paying particular attention to the analysis of the structure of their memory process in evaluating foreseen possibilities in games of dynamic equilibrium. The paper has two purposes. First, to publish a results chapter from my DPhil thesis (in revised journal article form) attending to the measurement of foresight in chess masters' evaluation process, testing alternative theories of cognitive expertise in the domain of chess; and second to provide a subset of the technical graphical analysis that corresponds to that measurement to preserve this protocol analysis for access in the academic domain for future studies of expert memory and foresight (e.g., Ericsson & Simon, 1993). The step-by-step protocol analysis consists of: (i) an introduction to foresight cognition as hypothesis testing, (ii) a theoretical review in the domain of chess masters' expertise according to the theoretical frameworks in that field purporting hypotheses relevant to chess masters' evaluative skill processes, and (iii) summary tables and non-parametric statistical analysis corroborating chunking theory frameworks of expert cognition (e.g., DeGroot, 1965; Newell & Simon, 1972; Gobet, 1998; Gobet et al., 2004), and refuting the alternative search-evaluation models (e.g., Holding & Reynolds, 1982). Moreover, the journal article espouses the preservation of the traditional protocol analysis method core to the field of expert cognition (DeGroot, 1969; Kotov, 1971). The full protocol analysis can be found in monograph form here on my SSRN profile in ‘The role of falsification in hypothesis testing’. It takes the form of a specialist population study (e.g., detailed case study work; Luria, 1987). Thus the outline consists of a short introduction, a theoretical methodological review discussing protocol analysis methods for specialist population studies in cognition (with particular attention to the preservation of protocol analysis methods for chess studies in cognition and expert memory/ with a fresh angle on the foresight process), and the full set of protocol analyses with corresponding problem behaviour graphs. A subset of the main results has been published elsewhere (e.g., Cowley & Byrne, 2004; Cowley 2006), receiving scientific and scientific journalistic acclaim (e.g., Nature Online News 2004).

There are two competing theoretical frameworks with which cognitive sciences examines how people reason. These frameworks are broadly categorized into logic and probability. This paper reports two applied experiments to test which framework explains better how people reason about evidence in criminal cases. Logical frameworks predict that people derive conclusions from the presented evidence to endorse an absolute value of certainty such as ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ (e.g., Johnson-Laird, 1999). But probabilistic frameworks predict that people derive conclusions from the presented evidence in order that they may use knowledge of prior instances to endorse a conclusion of guilt which varies in certainty (e.g., Tenenbaum, Griffiths, & Kemp, 2006). Experiment 1 showed that reasoning about evidence of prior instances, such as disclosed prior convictions, affected participants’ underlying ratings of guilt. Participants’ guilt ratings increased in certainty according to the number of disclosed prior convictions. Experiment 2 showed that participants’ reasoning about evidence of prior convictions and some forensic evidence tended to lead participants to endorse biased ‘guilty’ verdicts when rationally the evidence does not prove guilt. Both results are predicted by probabilistic frameworks. The paper considers the implications for logical and probabilistic frameworks for reasoning in the real world.

Many theories in philosophy, law, and psychology, make no distinction in meaning between causing and enabling conditions. Yet, psychologically people readily make such distinctions each day. In this paper we report three experiments, showing that individuals distinguish between causes and enabling conditions in brief descriptions of wrongful outcomes. Respondents rate actions that bring about outcomes as causes, and actions that make possible the causal relation as enablers. Likewise, causers (as opposed to enablers) are rated as more responsible for the outcome, as liable to longer prison sentences, and as liable to pay higher fines. Moreover, the more actors involved, the more blame volume there is psychologically to be apportioned between them. The implication is that theories and the law in practice, both criminal and civil, may dangerously mismatch the intuitions of those to whom they are supposed to apply. The findings are discussed in light of contemporary psychological theories of how people reason about cause. The paper presents the extended findings supplementary to the conference paper: Frosch, C. A., Johnson-Laird, P. N., Cowley, M. (2007). Don’t blame me your Honor, I’m only the enabler. Proceedings of the Twenty–Ninth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, p. 1755, Mahweh, N. J: Erlbaum. Nashville, USA. *Main findings now cited in the Oxford Handbook of Causal Reasoning.

Two main cognitive theories predict that people find refuting evidence that falsifies their theorising difficult, if not impossible to consider, even though such reasoning may be pivotal to grounding their everyday thoughts in reality (i.e., Poletiek, 1996; Klayman & Ha, 1987). In the classic 2-4-6 number sequence task devised by psychologists to test such reasoning skills in a simulated environment – people fail the test more often than not. In the 2-4-6 task participants try to discover what rule the number triple 2-4-6 conforms to. The rule is ‘ascending numbers’, but it is tricky to discover this rule. Participants tend to generate hypotheses with the properties of the 2-4-6 triple, for example, ‘even numbers ascending in twos’. They must search for evidence to test whether their hypothesis is the rule. But experimental evidence has shown that they tend to generate confirming triples that they expect to be consistent with their hypothesis rather than inconsistent falsifying triples. Counter to the two main hypothesis testing theories this paper demonstrates that falsification is possible in five 2-4-6 task experiments when participants consider an Imaginary Participant’s hypothesis. Experiment 1 and 2 show that competition with an opponent hypothesis tester facilitates falsification. Experiments 3 to 5 show that the consideration of an alternative hypothesis helps this falsification of hypotheses lead to rule discovery. The implications of the results for theories of hypothesis testing and reasoning are discussed.

This focus report presents a critical evaluation of the problems that the psychology of intent and foresight present to legal framework building for the protection of children in contemporary society. The report examines current public survey data on the role of intent and foresight in attributions of punishment and responsibility across: (i) contexts relevant to prior conviction evidence and disclosure (Ch. 11, Criminal Justice Act, 2003); and (ii) foresight and reasonable prevention when a child has died (Section 5, Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act, 2004). The results are embedded within psychological, legal, social care, policy and policing perspectives to help to understand the public’s response to the problem of foresight in child protection contexts (Foresight Policy ESRC Workshop: CSLS, University of Oxford, 2010). Reasonable Prevention, that is, anticipating outcomes that could have reasonably been foreseen, and anticipating the public’s attitude to the boundaries of responsibility for reasonable prevention, could provide a critical intersection for examining responsibility, punishment, and appropriate balanced intervention in child protection.

Can people consistently attempt to falsify, that is, search for refuting evidence, when testing the truth of hypotheses? Experimental evidence indicates that people tend to search for confirming evidence. We report two novel experiments that show that people can consistently falsify when it is the only helpful strategy. Experiment 1 showed that participants readily falsified somebody else’s hypothesis. Their task was to test a hypothesis belonging to an ‘imaginary participant’ and they knew it was a low quality hypothesis. Experiment 2 showed that participants were able to falsify a low quality hypothesis belonging to an imaginary participant more readily than their own low quality hypothesis. The results have important implications for theories of hypothesis testing and human rationality.

A classic problem for artificial intelligence is to build a machine that imitates human behavior well enough to convince those who are interacting with it that it is another human being. One approach to this problem focuses on building machines that imitate internal psychological facets of human interaction, such as artificially intelligent agents that play grandmaster chess. Another approach focuses on building machines that imitate external psychological facets by building androids. The disparity between these approaches reflects a problem with both: Artificial intelligence abstracts mentality from embodiment, while android science abstracts embodiment from mentality. This problem needs to be solved, if a sentient artificial entity that is indistinguishable from a human being, is to be constructed. One solution is to examine a fundamental human ability and context in which both the construction of internal cognitive models and an appropriate external social response are essential. This paper considers how reasoning with intent in the context of human vs. android strategic interaction may offer a psychological benchmark with which to evaluate the human-likeness of android strategic responses. Understanding how people reason with intent may offer a theoretical context in which to bridge the gap between the construction of sentient internal and external artificial agents.

Falsification may demarcate science from non-science as the rational way to test the truth of hypotheses. But experimental evidence from studies of reasoning shows that people often find falsification difficult. We suggest that domain expertise may facilitate falsification. We consider new experimental data about chess experts’ hypothesis testing. The results show that chess masters were readily able to falsify their plans. They generated move sequences that falsified their plans more readily than novice players, who tended to confirm their plans. The finding that experts in a domain are more likely to falsify their hypotheses has important implications for the debate about human rationality.

This paper presents empirical findings from a set of reasoning and mock jury studies presented at the Experimental Psychology Oxford Seminar Series (2010) and the King's Bench Chambers KBW Barristers Seminar Series (2010). The presentation asks the following questions and presents empirical answers using the Lenses of Evidence Framework (Cowley & Colyer, 2010; see also van Koppen & Wagenaar, 1993): Why is mental representation important for psychology? Why is mental representation important for evidence law? Lens 1: The self representation - Key findings Lens 2: The expert representation - Key findings Lens 3: The anchor representation - Key findings Conclusions & Future directions. The series of research essentially explores how people represent evidence in mind and presents key findings now cited in the following literatures: Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Expertise, Behavioural Economics, Cognitive Science, Psychology and Public Policy, & Causation and the Law.

DNA evidence is one of the most significant modern advances in the search for truth since the cross examination, but its format as a random-match-probability makes it difficult for people to assign an appropriate probative value (Koehler, 2001). While Frequentist theories propose that the presentation of the match as a frequency rather than a probability facilitates more accurate assessment (e.g., Slovic et al., 2000), Exemplar-Cueing Theory predicts that the subjective weight assigned may be affected by the frequency or probability format, and how easily examples of the event, i.e., ‘exemplars’, are generated from linguistic cues that frame the match in light of further evidence (Koehler & Macchi, 2004). This paper presents two juror research studies to examine the difficulties that jurors have in assigning appropriate probative value to DNA evidence when contradictory evidence is presented. Study 1 showed that refuting evidence significantly reduced guilt judgments when exemplars were linguistically cued, even when the probability match and the refuting evidence had the same objective probative value. Moreover, qualitative reason for judgment responses revealed that interpreting refuting evidence was found to be complex and not necessarily reductive; refutation was found indicative of innocence or guilt depending on whether exemplars have been cued or not. Study 2 showed that the introduction of judges’ directions to linguistically cue exemplars, did not increase the impact of refuting evidence beyond its objective probative value, but less guilty verdicts were returned when jurors were instructed to consider all possible explanations of the evidence. The results are discussed in light of contradictory frequentist and exemplar-cueing theoretical positions, and their real-world consequences.

In three empirical studies we examined how people reason about prior convictions in child abuse cases. We tested whether the disclosure of similar prior convictions prompts a mental representation or an additive probative value (Criminal Justice Act, 2003). Asymmetrical use of similar priors were observed in three studies. A pilot study showed that disclosure of a second prior did not contribute a weight equivalent to that of the first disclosure. Study 1 showed jurors did not see left-handed evidence (i.e. matching victim bruising) as more indicative of guilt than right-handedness unless a prior conviction was present, and the presence of priors suppressed the generation of alternative possibilities indicative of innocence. Study 2 showed that disclosure did not decrease community ratings of reoffending propensity and dangerousness as much as a similar prior conviction increased them. We consider the results in the context of a new psychological theory of prior conviction bias and the consequences for the implementation of Section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act (2003).

Each day people are presented with circumstances that may require speculation. Scientists may ponder questions such as why a star is born or how rainbows are made, psychologists may ask social questions such as why people are prejudiced, and military strategists may imagine what the consequences of their actions might be. Speculations may lead to the generation of putative explanations called hypotheses. But it is by checking if hypotheses accurately reflect the encountered facts that lead to sensible behaviour demonstrating a true understanding. If evidence shows a hypothesis to be false, then people should rationally abandon it, especially if there are negative consequences. The aim of this thesis is to examine how effectively people search for evidence in their hypothesis testing to test whether or not their hypotheses are true or false in competitive games. Research findings from six studies of hypothesis testing behaviour in competitive deductive tasks are explored. Chapter by chapter the thesis tests how everyday people, and master chess players, tackle hypothesis testing in mathematical tasks, such as how to solve sequential number sequence puzzles when thinking about an opponent, or how to solve chess problems in a variety of contexts. The implications of the results are discussed in light of aspects of general cognition: such as reasoning, social hypothesis testing and planning.