Lecture 12 Flashcards
dual process theories 101
two reasoning systems
- heuristic (intuitive, system 1): fast, automatic, and draws on background knowledge and intuition
- analytic (logic, system 2): slow, resource demanding, focuses on structure, decontextualization
defining feature of system 1/2
only defining feature: autonomy
- system 1 is automatically activated when cues are present, and hence puts no load on working memory
different views on system 1/2
core assumptions for traditional models (serial and parallel)
- bias blind spot assumption
- corrective assumption
bias blind spot assumption
serial (‘default-interventionist’) model
- default system 1 response
- cognitive misers, lax monitors
- ‘we don’t know we’re wrong’
reliable conflict detection data
different methods
- latencies, eye movements, fMRI, SCR, EEG, lexical decisions, confidence, developmental
different tasks
- base-rate neglect, conjunction fallacy, syllogisms, ratio bias, bat and ball, number conservation, math problems
sensitivity to violations of traditional norms
hard?
- ‘effortful analytic computations’ (system 2): parallel dual process model
easy?
- ‘gut conflict feeling’ (sysem 1): logical intuitions
a case for logical intuitions
- implicit: no verbalization, no justification
- automatic: even least gifted reasoners, no load effects (knocking out system 2)
- development: key principles acquired early
logical intuitions are not necessarily ‘logical’
superficial cues can drive intuitive logic effects
dual process implication
system 1/system 2 interaction
- how does system 2 know when to kick in?
- pure serial/parallel model problematic
- logical intuition model
- conflict between logical and heuristic intuition
corrective DPT assumption
core classic dual process assumptions
- bias blind spot assumption: nature biased reasoning?
- corrective assumption: nature sound reasoning?
corrective nature of system 2
- correct responding requires correction of initial intuitive response
two-response paradigm
give first answer that comes to mind as fast as possible
- next you can take all the time you want to deliberate and give a final response
two-response paradigm method
first resposne really intuitive
- knock out system 2 with deadline and load
- check for familiarity and modified content
- check for guessing with multiple problems and format
- realiability: total of 11 studies, 3 tasks (syllogisms, base-rate, bat and ball)
bat and ball results
correct answers are typically intuitive
corrective assumption conclusion
classic serial and parallel models
- corrective nature system 2?
- no, system 1 can generate correct logical response intuitively (need to upgrade view of system 1)
hybrid DPT
uncertainty monitoring
dual process theory
why do we fall for fake news
partisanship-motivated reasoning
- we convince ourselves that politically-aligned information is true
- deliberation is to rationalize our intuition and biases
accuracy-motivation
- we open-mindedly try to figure out the truth - sometimes we are just lazy to engage in reasoning
- deliberation is to figure out the correct solution
conspiracy thinking
Princess Diana had a car accident and died
- official: speeding and drunk driver caused the accident
- conspirational: Prince Philip, the Royal Family, and MI5 conspired to kill her
- refutation: isn’t it suspicious that it took the ambulance 30 minutes to get to the hospital (instead of the usual 5)?
prior conspiracy beliefs
- ‘certain significant events have been the result of the activity of a small group who secretly manipulate world events’
- ‘a lot of important information is deliberately concealed from the public (by people in power) out of self-interest’
evidence for deliberation effect
- usually have no control problems (only conspiracy items)
- could deliberation be dependent on prior beliefs?
- study 1-2: in system 2 less familiar conspiracy theories + stringent control
prior beliefs and deliberation
quadratic relationship
conclusions - conspiracy
- deliberation helps but only a few people
- deliberation did not help who were apathetic toward conspiracies in the first place
- change prior beliefs first?
conclusions
- traditional dual process theories were built on 2 common assumptions
- bias blind spot: detect errors and conflict
- corrective assumption: most correct responses are intuitive
- hybrid dual process model: different intuitive responses activated from first stage, uncertainty (e.g. conflict) drives dliberative engagement
- nevertheless system 2, when engaged, can lead to corrections, instead of more bias
