Dual Process Theory - ERQ Flashcards
Evaluation of Dual Process Theory
The distinction between System 1 and System 2 thinking is well supported by research, such as Atler & Oppenheimer’s study on the effects of font on the CRT (cognitive reflections test)
The theory can explain why intelligent people can sometimes make poor decisions whenever they rely on System 1 to come up with a fast, effortless (but sometimes wrong) answer
Dual process theory is also consistent with evolution. System 1 is believed to have evolved in the distant past to make quick, potentially life saving decisions, while System 2 is a more modern adaptation to help us think deliberately and carefully. If a snake is wrapped around your leg, you don’t want to think about it for very long - you need to act fast, and this is where System 1 really shines
However, System 1 and System 2 must be understood as simply being metaphors for different decision making processes. There are not actually two different parts of the brain called “System 1” and “System 2”. In fact, many parts of the brain are involved in both System 1 and System 2 thinking
Biological support for the Wason Selection task
Biological evidence supports what we see in the Wason Selection Task by showing that different types of processing may be located in different parts of the brain. Goel
What did Goel et al make participants do?
Goel et al had participants carry out a logic task similar to the ones above. In some cases, the task was abstract in nature (for example, an odd number and a matching colour). In contrast, some of the tasks were “concrete” in nature (for example, drinking beer and under 18).
Results of Goel et al
The researchers had the participants decide on the correct choices while in an fMRI. Although there were many common areas of the brain that were active in solving the problems, there was a clear difference. When the task was abstract, the parietal lobe was active; when the task was concrete, the left hemisphere temporal lobe was active. The parietal lobe is often associated with spatial processing.
Finding of Goel et al
This seems to indicate that the brain processes these two types of information differently - and thus may be seen as support for the model.
What did Englich and Mussweiler want to find out?
In the courtroom, in many countries, often a sentence is demanded or recommended by a prosecutor.
Psychologists Englich and Mussweiler wanted to know if the simple request for a certain length of prison sentence would unduly influence the decision made by a judge.
Result of Englich and Mussweiler
The average rating for the realistic nature of the case was 7.17, with a standard deviation of 1.3. The judges’ certainty about their responses, however, were not as strong, with an average rating of 4.53 and a standard deviation of 2.29.
When presented with a low anchor of two months, the average sentence was 18.78 months, with a standard deviation of 9.11. in the high anchor condition of 34 months, the average sentence was 28.70 months, with a standard deviation of 6.53.
Evaluation of Englich and Mussweiler
The study was a true experiment, allowing the researchers to infer a cause and effect relationship between the value of the anchor and the sentence.
The use of an independent samples design means that participant variability may have played a role in the results - serving as a confounding variable.
The sample size is small. It is difficult to generalize the findings. In addition, the sample was limited in courtroom experience - which means that the results can best be generalized to younger, less experienced judges.
The use of the pilot group helped to establish reasonable anchors. In addition, the pilot group demonstrated System 2 thinking, serving as a control group for the other two conditions, which demonstrated System 1 thinking.
The low scores on the judges’ sense of confidence indicate that they may have been aware that their judgment was being influenced by other factors.
