David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 172 (1):129 - 143 (2010)
The hypothesis that human reasoning and decision-making can be roughly modeled by Expected Utility Theory has been at the core of decision science. Accumulating evidence has led researchers to modify the hypothesis. One of the latest additions to the field is Dual Process theory, which attempts to explain variance between participants and tasks when it comes to deviations from Expected Utility Theory. It is argued that Dual Process theories at this point cannot replace previous theories, since they, among other things, lack a firm conceptual framework, and have no means of producing independent evidence for their case.
|Keywords||Decision theory Decision science Decision-making Human reasoning Dual process theory Rationality Prospect theory Expected utility Normative man Economic man Rational angel Ramsey|
|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
Gerd Gigerenzer (1999). Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford University Press.
Leonard J. Savage (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley Publications in Statistics.
L. Jonathan Cohen (1981). Can Human Irrationality Be Experimentally Demonstrated? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4 (3):317-370.
F. P. Ramsey (2010). Truth and Probability. In Antony Eagle (ed.), Philosophy of Probability: Contemporary Readings. Routledge 52-94.
Keith E. Stanovich & Richard F. West (2000). Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):645-665.
Citations of this work BETA
Conrad Heilmann (2014). Success Conditions for Nudges: A Methodological Critique of Libertarian Paternalism. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 4 (1):1-20.
Similar books and articles
Mark Sargent (2009). Answering the Bayesian Challenge. Erkenntnis 70 (2):237 - 252.
Jonathan St B. T. Evans (2007). On the Resolution of Conflict in Dual Process Theories of Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 13 (4):321 – 339.
Marc le Menestrel (2001). A Process Approach to the Utility for Gambling. Theory and Decision 50 (3):249-262.
Keith E. Stanovich (2004). Balance in Psychological Research: The Dual Process Perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (3):357-358.
Keith Frankish (2010). Dual-Process and Dual-System Theories of Reasoning. Philosophy Compass 5 (10):914-926.
Mike Oaksford & Nick Chater (2012). Dual Processes, Probabilities, and Cognitive Architecture. Mind and Society 11 (1):15-26.
Ilkka Pyysiäinen (2003). Dual-Process Theories and Hybrid Systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):617-618.
Guillaume Beaulac (2010). A Two Speed Mind? For a Heuristic Interpretation of Dual-Process Theories (L'esprit À Deux Vitesses ? Pour Une Interprétation Heuristique des Théories À Processus Duaux). Dissertation, Université du Québec À Montréal
Linda A. W. Brakel & Howard Shevrin (2003). Freud's Dual Process Theory and the Place of the a-Rational. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (4):527-528.
Added to index2009-02-28
Total downloads68 ( #59,503 of 1,790,294 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #83,505 of 1,790,294 )
How can I increase my downloads?