Exam Prep Notes – Thinking and Decision Making

a) Introduction : Refer to the principles of the cognitive level of analysis

b) Theory : Define Key terms - Dual Processing Model

We are constantly bombarded by information. To cope with so much information,

we often choose not to process it by not paying attention to it. However, when we
pay attention to the stimuli around us, we engage in a process known as thinking.

Thinking is the process of using knowledge and information to make plans, interpret
the world, and make predictions about the world in general. The process of thinking
includes the analysis, synthesis of information to reach conclusions. There are
several components of thinking - these include problem-solving, creativity,
reasoning, and decision making.
Decision making is defined as the process of identifying and choosing alternatives
based on the values and preferences of the decision-maker. Decision-making is
needed during problem-solving to reach the conclusion.
Problem-solving is thinking that is directed toward solving specific problems using a
set of mental strategies. The concepts of problem-solving, decision-making and
thinking are very much interconnected.

The Dual Process Model of Thinking and Decision Making

Different kinds of problems require different ways of thinking. The Dual Process
Model of thinking and decision making postulates that there are two basic modes of
thinking - what Stanovich and West (2000) refer to as "System 1" and "System 2."

System 1 is an automatic, intuitive, and effortless way of thinking. System 1 thinking

often employs heuristics - that is, a ‘rule’ used to make decisions or form judgments.
Heuristics are mental short-cuts that involve focusing on one aspect of a complex
problem and ignoring others (Lewis, 2008). This ‘fast’ mode of thinking allows for
efficient processing of the often complex world around us but may be prone to
errors when our assumptions do not match the reality of a specific situation.
These errors may have greater consequences in our day-to-day lives because system
1 thinking is expected to create a greater feeling of certitude – certainty that our
initial response is correct.
Gilbert and Gill (2000) have argued that we become more likely to use System 1
thinking when our cognitive load is high - that is, when we have lots of different
things to think about at the same time, or we have to process information and make
a decision quickly.

System 2 is a slower, conscious, and rational mode of thinking. This mode of thinking
is assumed to require more effort. System 2 starts by thinking carefully about all of
the possible ways we could interpret a situation and gradually eliminates
possibilities based on sensory evidence until we arrive at a solution. Rational
thinking allows us to analyze the world around us and think carefully about what is
happening, why it is happening, what is most likely to happen next, and how we
might influence the situation. This mode of thinking is less likely to create feelings of
certitude and confidence.

It is important to remember that we often use both of these systems when

addressing a problem. System 1 will reach a quick conclusion and then System 2 will
go into further analysis to hopefully reach a "more correct" conclusion. Because
System 1 is activated before System 2 can do its work, often System 1 interferes with
the effectiveness of System 2.

Characteristics of System 1 and System 2 thinking

System 1 System 2

Context-dependent - focuses on
existing evidence and ignores absent Abstract
evidence

Concerns everyday decision making Conscious reasoning

Generates impressions and

Logical and reliable
inclinations.

Not logic-based and prone to error Slow and requiring effort

Transfers information from

Operates automatically and quickly
one situation to a new
with little or no effort
situation.
c) Research Studies

Atler & Oppenheimer, 2007

Aim: Investigate how font affects thinking

Procedure

 40 Princeton students completed the Cognitive Reflections Test (CRT). This test is
made up of 3 questions, and measures whether people use fast thinking to answer
the question (and get it wrong) or use slow thinking (and get it right)

 Half the students were given the CRT in an easy-to-read font, while the other half
were given the CRT in a difficult-to-read font

Findings

 Among students given the CRT in easy font, only 10% of participants answered all
three questions correctly, while among the students given the CRT in difficult font,
65% of participants were fully correct

Conclusion

 When a question is written in a difficult-to-read font, this causes participants to slow

down, and engage in more deliberate, effortful System 2 thinking, resulting in
answering the question correctly

 On the other hand, when the question is written in an easy-to-read font, participants
use quick, unconscious and automatic System 1 thinking to come up with the
obvious (but incorrect) answer

Evaluation

 This study provides strong evidence for dual processing theory, providing support
for Kahneman's model of fast System 1 and slow System 2 thinking

 The study only involved Princeton undergraduate students, which are clearly not
representative of the general population. Therefore, the results may not generalize
to other groups of participants

 The CRT is made up of "trick" questions, which rarely come up in everyday life.
Therefore, the ecological validity of this study is low, as the real-world significance of
these findings is unclear
Wason 1968
One example of research that supports the dual-process model is based on
the Wason selection task.
The image to the left is an example of the task. Participants would be shown this set
of cards and asked the following question: Which card(s) must be turned over to test
the idea that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is
red?

Most people you chose the cards with the number "8" and the "red" card. But this is
incorrect. We make this decision based on what Wason called matching bias - that
is, in an abstract problem, we tend to be overly influenced by the wording (or
context) of the question. In this case, the words "even number" and "red."
Evans and Wason (1976) found that when asked why they chose the cards that they
did, they were not able to clearly explain their choices.
The Wason selection task provides important evidence for the dual-process model.
Most people make the decision of which cards to choose without any reasoning -
but as an automatic response to the context of the question. Wason (1968) found
that even when he trained people how to answer this question, when he changed
the context, the same mistakes were made.
Griggs and Cox (1982) found that when the task is not abstract, we do not tend to
show the matching bias. If you chose "drinking beer" and "16 years of age," then you
are correct. Researchers have found that when the task is not abstract, 75% of
people are able to correctly answer the question.
When the task is not abstract, System 1 works just fine in solving the problem.
Which cards would you have to turn over in order to prove if the following
statement is true? If a person is drinking beer, then that person must be over 18
years old.
Tversky and Kahnemann (1974)

According to the Dual Process Model, when we make a decision, we either use
system 1 or system 2 thinking. System 1 thinking is quick and relies on past
experience or mental short-cuts, called heuristics. System 2 thinking is more
rational, using logic and reasoning. This system, however, is slow.
One of the heuristics that affects our ability to make a rational judgment is
anchoring bias. Below is a summary of a simple study done by Tversky and
Kahnemann that demonstrates the power of anchoring bias.
Procedure and Results
In this study, high school students were used as participants. Participants in the
“ascending condition” were asked to quickly estimate the value of 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X
6 X 7 X 8 in five seconds.
Those in the “descending condition” were asked to quickly estimate the value of 8 X
7 X 6 X 5 X 4 X 3 X 2 X 1.
Since we read from left to right, the researchers assumed that group 1 would use "1"
as an anchor and predict a lower value that the group that started with "8" as the
anchor. The expectation was that the first number seen would bias the estimate of
the value by the participant.
The researchers found that the median for the ascending group was 512; the
median for the descending group was 2250. The actual value is 40320.

Evaluation
The study is a very simple experiment that is easily replicated, allowing us to
establish the reliability of the results. The study is highly controlled and has high
internal validity. It can be inferred that the anchor was the cause of the higher (or
lower) estimates by the students.
The experiment has low ecological validity. The situation is very artificial. It is not
too often in life that we have only five seconds to estimate the value of something!
It is questionable to what extent the findings can be applied. However, as shown in
the studies above, there is evidence that anchoring is shown in other situations.
The researchers used the median to report the data. This allowed the researchers to
diminish the influence of outliers on the reporting of the data.
The study was an independent samples design. This means that participant
variability may have played a role in the results. It would be better to have a
matched pairs design to attempt to have two groups with an equivalent level of
maths competency.
 Evaluating Dual Processing Model

 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

 Not all researchers agree that there are two systems. Some alternate models of
thinking have suggested that there are four (or more) different systems of thinking

 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 et al (2000) 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). 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. This seems to indicate that the brain processes
these two types of information differently - and thus may be seen as support for
the model.