David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Thinking and Reasoning 13 (4):321 – 339 (2007)
In this paper, I show that the question of how dual process theories of reasoning and judgement account for conflict between System 1 (heuristic) and System 2 (analytic) processes needs to be explicated and addressed in future research work. I demonstrate that a simple additive probability model that describes such conflict can be mapped on to three different cognitive models. The pre-emptive conflict resolution model assumes that a decision is made at the outset as to whether a heuristic or analytic process will control the response. The parallel-competitive model assumes that each system operates in parallel to deliver a putative response, resulting sometimes in conflict that then needs to be resolved. Finally, the default-interventionist model involves the cueing of default responses by the heuristic system that may or may not be altered by subsequent intervention of the analytic system. A second, independent issue also emerges from this discussion. The superior performance of higher-ability participants on reasoning tasks may be due to the fact that they engage in more analytic reasoning ( quantity hypothesis ) or alternatively to the fact that the analytic reasoning they apply is more effective ( quality hypothesis ).
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Eugen Fischer (2014). Philosophical Intuitions , Heuristics , and Metaphors. Synthese 191 (3):569-606.
Wim De Neys & Jean-François Bonnefon (2013). The 'Whys' and 'Whens' of Individual Differences in Thinking Biases. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17 (4):172-178.
Wim De Neys & Samuel Franssens (2009). Belief Inhibition During Thinking: Not Always Winning but at Least Taking Part. Cognition 113 (1):45-61.
Similar books and articles
Paul A. Klaczynski & David B. Daniel (2005). Individual Differences in Conditional Reasoning: A Dual-Process Account. Thinking and Reasoning 11 (4):305 – 325.
Linden J. Ball & Jeremy D. Quayle (2000). Alternative Task Construals, Computational Escape Hatches, and Dual-System Theories of Reasoning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):667-668.
Niki Verschueren, Walter Schaeken & G. (2005). A Dual-Process Specification of Causal Conditional Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 11 (3):239 – 278.
Mike Oaksford & Nick Chater (2012). Dual Processes, Probabilities, and Cognitive Architecture. Mind and Society 11 (1):15-26.
Jonathan St B. T. Evans & Jodie Curtis-Holmes (2005). Rapid Responding Increases Belief Bias: Evidence for the Dual-Process Theory of Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 11 (4):382 – 389.
Shira Elqayam (2011). Models of Dependence and Independence: A Two-Dimensional Architecture of Dual Processing. Thinking and Reasoning 15 (4):377-387.
Wim de Neys & Samuel Franssens (2011). The Effortless Nature of Conflict Detection During Thinking. Thinking and Reasoning 15 (2):105-128.
Linden J. Ball & Edward J. N. Stupple (2008). Belief-Logic Conflict Resolution in Syllogistic Reasoning: Inspection-Time Evidence for a Parallel-Process Model. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (2):168-181.
Edward J. N. Stupple & Linden J. Ball (2008). Belief-Logic Conflict Resolution in Syllogistic Reasoning: Inspection-Time Evidence for a Parallel-Process Model. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (2):168 – 181.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads67 ( #20,237 of 1,096,391 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #130,625 of 1,096,391 )
How can I increase my downloads?