Two Systems, Two Selves Flashcards
Quick vs Considered Choices
Dijksterhuis and van Olden (2006): Experiment: Choose among 5 posters under three conditions
Deliberate consideration
Make quick decision
Look at posters, solve anagrams, make quick decision
Immediately after, the deliberation group were most satisfied with their posters (which they were given at the end of the session)
Versions of the Two Systems Theory
William James – distinction between associative thought and reasoning
Sloman – similarity/contiguity vs rule-based systems
Kahneman – intuition and reasoning
System 1 and System 2 – Stanovich and West
System 1 – fast, automatic, little or no effort, no voluntary control
System 2 – slow, allocation of effort, complex “computations”, feeling of agencySystem 1 is usually highly active (when we are awake)
System 2 usually runs in a “low effort” mode
Unconscious Influences on System 1
System 1 is subject to a variety of influences that we are not aware of, and which influence our thinking in ways that System 2 (or logic more generally) might not approve of
Strack, Martin and Stepper 1988 – holding pencil in mouth to cause frown (lips) vs smile (teeth – TRY IT!) made Far Side cartoon less or more amusing
Unconscious Influences on System 1 – Not caught by System 2
Bateson et al 2006 – picture of face (eyes watching you) vs flowers sig increased money put into honesty box for coffee in academic kitchen
Cognitive Ease
Cognitive Ease (when thinking seems easy)– leads to reliance on System 1. Can lead to illusions of truth – System 1 tends to accept things at face value Woes unite foes/enemies – rhyming version found more insightful
Cognitive ease vs Cognitive strain
Alter et al. 2007 – Slightly difficult, trick maths questions were solved more successfully in difficult to read font
System 2 – “logical” but lazy
System 2 is lazy and easily fatigued
When remembering digits – more likely to chose choc cake over fruit salad (Friese et al. 2008)
Baumeister – ego depletion – doing a difficult task has consequences afterwards
Danziger et al. 2011 – parole judges grant 65% of applications following a food break falling sharply (to the default “easy” option of denying parole) before next food break.
Examples of Substitution
System 1 makes basic assessments of things in the world all the time
Sometimes we have to make more difficult assessments
We often do so by substitution of a simpler question for a harder one
A Consequence of Substitution – Incorrect Judgements
Todorov et al. 2008, 2009 – people can form an evaluation of dominance and trustworthiness from a face very rapidly
From chin and smile respectively
Election winners 70% of time score higher on these measures
Emotions and the Affect Heuristic
Affect heuristic (Slovic) – our likes and dislikes determine our beliefs Furthermore, with emotions, System 2 is more likely to endorse System 1, than to question its conclusions (which it is more likely to do in other domains) Slovic showed that perceived benefits of technologies correlate (much too) highly (and negatively) with perceived risks
A Consequence of the Affect Heuristic
Equal probabilities estimated, but degree of illness depended on relationship.Magical thinking (e.g. Contagion – would you wear Hitler’s sweater?) as a case where System 2 doesn’t question System 1 output
Two Selves
The Experiencing Self
The Remembering Self
Note that these do NOT correspond to System 1 and System 2
Two meanings of “utility”
Experienced Utility Hedonic experience – pleasure and pain Bentham and Utilitarianism as a theory of ethics Decision Utility Wants and desires Based on memory and projection Economic utility theory
EWB vs Life Evaluation
Education – increases life evaluation, but may decrease EWB because of stress
Ill-health, religion, having kids – primarily affects EWB
Wealth, increases life evaluation, but has little effect of EWB above about $75K per household in high cost areas of the US
