DOCSLIB.ORG

Testing the Corrective Assumption of Dual Process Theory in Reasoning

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Testing the Corrective Assumption of Dual Process Theory in Reasoning Université Paris Descartes École doctorale 261 « Cognition, Comportements, Conduites Humaines » Laboratoire de Psychologie du Développement et de l’Éducation de l’enfant LaPsyDÉ, UMR 8240, CNRS Testing the corrective assumption of dual process theory in reasoning Bence BAGO Thèse de doctorat de Psychologie, mention Neurosciences Cognitives Dirigée par Dr. Wim De Neys Présentée et soutenue publiquement le 30 mai 2018. Devant un jury composé de : De Neys, Wim, Directeur de recherche, CNRS – Directeur de la thèse Mercier, Hugo, Chargé de recherche, CNRS – Rapporteur Prado, Jérôme, Chargé de recherche, Université de Lyon 1 – Rapporteur Sander, Emmanuel, Professeur des Universités, Université de Genève – Examinateur Borst, Gregoire, Professeur des Universités, Université Paris Descartes – Examinateur 1 2 Bago Bence – Thèse de doctorat - 2018 Résumé (français) : Dans le champ du raisonnement, les théories du double processus sont largement reconnues comme expliquant différents phénomènes, tels que les biais décisionnels et le raisonnement moral ou coopératif. Ces théories conçoivent le mode de pensée de l’homme comme une interaction entre un système rapide, automatique et intuitif (Système 1) et un système plus lent et contrôlé (Système 2). Le point de vue dominant sur les double processus et le modèle default-interventionist qui suppose l’existence d’une interaction sérielle entre ces systèmes. Ainsi, quand quelqu’un est affronté à un problème de raisonnement, la réponse de Système 1 se forme initialement. Puis, le Système 2 peut être impliqué dans le processus. Les théories du double processus dominantes postulent que les biais de raisonnement sont le résultat d’une réponse intuitive erronée du Système 1. Selon ces théories le Système 1 est capable de générer des réponses basées sur les indices « heuristiques », tels que les stéréotypes – mais il ne peut pas rendre compte des principes logico-mathématiques. Malgré la grande reconnaissante qu’elle a reçu, cette théorie contient une présomption jamais testée, notamment la présomption « corrective ». Celle-ci postule que dans les situations où les indices heuristiques sont en conflit avec les principes logico-mathématiques, le Système 2 devient obligatoirement impliqué afin de corriger la réponse erronée de Système 1 et ainsi arrive à une réponse utilisant les principes logiques. Il semble donc crucial de tester cette présomption, qui est la question centrale de cette thèse. Dans l’Etude 1, j’ai utilisé des versions modifiées du paradigme de deux réponses afin de tester la présomption corrective utilisant deux problèmes classiques du raisonnement (problèmes de taux de base et de raisonnement syllogistique). Dans ce paradigme, les participants résolvent la même tâche deux fois. D’abord, ils doivent donner une réponse très rapidement. Après, ils font face à la même tâche sans contrainte temporelle. Afin de vérifier que la première réponse est intuitive, on a employé quatre méthodes : des instructions, une charge concomitante, un temps limite de réponse, ainsi que la charge concomitante et le temps limite simultanément. La théorie du double processus prédit que les réponses logiquement correctes n’apparaissent que dans l’étape finale. A contrario, j’ai trouvé que la plupart des participants ayant donné la bonne réponse à l’étape finale l’avaient déjà donnée lors de la phase initiale. Cet effet était présent dans toutes les procédures expérimentales et dans les 2 problèmes de raisonnement. Dans l’Etude 2, j’ai testé la même présomption avec un problème de raisonnement plus difficile, le problème de la « batte-et-balle ». J’ai conduit 7 expériences avec le paradigme de deux réponses et j’ai trouvé que les personnes ayant donné la réponse correcte à la fin l’ont déjà générée lors de la réponse initiale – donc, il semblerait que les participants l’ont fait intuitivement. Ces résultats m’ont amené à réviser le cadre default-interventionist et à proposer une théorie du double processus hybride qui suppose que le Système 1 génère deux différentes réponses intuitives dont une basée sur les principes logico-mathématiques. Ces réponses possèdent une force équivoque au début – celle qui gagnera plus en force sera donnée comme la réponse initiale. J’ai testé les prédictions dérivées de ce modèle via l’Etude 3. Dans l’Etude 4, j’ai utilisé l’EEG afin de retrouver les corrélats neuronaux du traitement logique précoce au cours du raisonnement. Au cours de l’Etude 5, j’ai commencé à tester la possibilité de généraliser ce modèle hybride et j’ai étudié si les patterns de réponse étaient similaires lorsque les participants répondent à des dilemmes moraux. Grâce l’Etude 6, j’ai mis au point le modèle hybride en testant les changements de force des réponses intuitives au cours du temps. En résumé, cette thèse montre la nécessité de réviser la vue traditionnelle des théories du double processus du raisonnement chez l’homme. Mots clés (français) : Raisonnement, Théorie du double processus, Supposition « corrective » 3 Bago Bence – Thèse de doctorat - 2018 Abstract : Dual-process theories of reasoning have become widely recognized as an explanation for various phenomena, such as thinking biases, moral or cooperative reasoning. Dual-process theory conceives human thinking as the interaction of a fast, more automatic, intuitive system (System 1) and a slower, controlled, more deliberative one (System 2). Arguably, the most dominant view on dual processes is the default-interventionist model. This posits a serial interaction between the two systems. When someone is faced with a reasoning problem, initially a System 1 intuitive response is formed. Then, afterwards, System 2 might get engaged in the process. Prominent dual-process theorists argue that reasoning bias occurs as a result of erroneous System 1 intuition. System 1 is thought to be able to generate responses based on “heuristic” cues, such as stereotypes rather than logico-mathematical principles. Despite its huge recognition, this theory comes with an untested assumption: the corrective (time-course) assumption. This posits that in cases in which heuristic cues are in conflict with logico-mathematical principles, System 2 needs to engage in order to correct initially formed System 1 intuitions, and form a judgement based on logical principles. Testing this assumption is inevitably important and the central question of this thesis. In Study 1, I used four modified versions of the two-response paradigm to test the corrective assumption with two different classic reasoning problems (base rate problems, syllogisms). In this paradigm, people are presented with the same problem twice. First, they are asked to give an initial, very quick response. After, they are presented with the same problem again and asked to give a final response without any constraints. To make sure that the initial response is really intuitive, I applied four different procedures: instructions, concurrent load, response deadline and load plus deadline. Dual process theory predicts that logically correct responses will only appear at the final response stage. Surprisingly, I found that the majority of people who gave the logically correct response in the final response stage already gave it form the beginning. This effect was found to be consistent among all experimental procedures and both reasoning problems. In Study 2, I tried to test the same assumption with a different -harder- reasoning task, the bat-and-ball problem. Interestingly, I ran 7 experiments with the two-response paradigm and consistently found that correct reasoners are often able to generate the correct response from the beginning, so-to-say, intuitively. These results forced me to revise the default-interventionist framework and propose the hybrid dual process model. This model now argues that System 1 generates two kinds of intuitive responses one of which is based on mathematico-logical principles. These responses are not necessarily generated with equal strength – the one which gains the more strength will be given as the initial response. In Study 3, I directly tested predictions derived from this model. In Study 4, I used EEG to search for the neural correlates of early logical processing in reasoning. In Study 5, I started to test the hybrid model’s domain generality, and test if I find similar patterns of responses when people are faced with moral dilemmas. In Study 6, I further developed the hybrid model by examining the changes in the strength of intuitive responses over time. Overall, this thesis found evidence that forces us to revise the traditional dual process view on human reasoning. Keywords : Reasoning; Dual process theory; Corrective assumption 4 Bago Bence – Thèse de doctorat - 2018 No one can give you back the time you spend on reading this. 5 Bago Bence – Thèse de doctorat - 2018 Acknowledgements This work would not have been started, let alone completed, without my supervisor. He has a very good eye for details and a probably unlimited source of patience. What I managed to learn about scientific writing over the last years, is directly coming from him. I would like to thank him for helping me cope with difficulties, fight with the sometimes irrational reviewers, the enormous amount of time and energy he invested in me and my career; and when I say enormous, I am not exaggerating. I sometimes wonder how he kept up with his other duties. If I become half as good of a researcher as he is, I will already be satisfied with myself. Wim, thank you very much. I do hope I will have the opportunity to continue working with you in the future. Wim thought me half of what I know about research, but the other half is coming from my first supervisor, later collaborator and friend, Balázs Aczél. Balázs was the first one who introduced me to the world of reasoning and science in general. He thought me how to be critical about my own work. I thank him for his help all the way from the very beginning to this point.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dennett's Dual-Process Theory of Reasoning ∗
    ∗∗∗ Dennett’s dual-process theory of reasoning Keith Frankish 1. Introduction Content and Consciousness (hereafter, C&C) 1 outlined an elegant and powerful framework for thinking about the relation between mind and brain and about how science can inform our understanding of the mind. By locating everyday mentalistic explanations at the personal level of whole, environmentally embedded organisms, and related scientific explanations at the subpersonal level of internal informational states and processes, and by judicious reflections on the relations between these levels, Dennett showed how we can avoid the complementary errors of treating mental states as independent of the brain and of projecting mentalistic categories onto the brain. In this way, combining cognitivism with insights from logical behaviourism, we can halt the swinging of the philosophical pendulum between the “ontic bulge” of dualism (C&C, p.5) and the confused or implausible identities posited by some brands of materialism, thereby freeing ourselves to focus on the truly fruitful question of how the brain can perform feats that warrant the ascription of thoughts and experiences to the organism that possesses it. The main themes of the book are, of course, intentionality and experience – content and consciousness. Dennett has substantially expanded and revised his views on these topics over the years, though without abandoning the foundations laid down in C&C, and his views have been voluminously discussed in the associated literature. In the field of intentionality, the major lessons of C&C have been widely accepted – and there can be no higher praise than to say that claims that seemed radical forty-odd years ago now seem obvious.
    [Show full text]
  • What Are Dual Process Models? Implications for Cultural Analysis in Sociology1
    What Are Dual Process Models? Implications for Cultural Analysis in Sociology1 Omar Lizardo Robert Mowry Brandon Sepulvado [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Dustin S. Stoltz Marshall A. Taylor Justin Van Ness [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Michael Wood [email protected] 1 The idea for this paper first emerged in a fruitful discussion in a graduate seminar on “Culture, Cognition, and Society” led by the first author in the Spring of 2015 and in which all other authors were participants. Our names appear in alphabetical order to reflect the fact that this paper has been a collective endeavor through and through, from conception, to writing, to editing each other's words, although it did not took long for one of the authors to note the fact that, conveniently enough, this arbitrary convention still left the first author slot to be occupied by the more (institutionally) senior member of the group. In spite of that, this paper would never had come to fruition if it was not for Dustin Stoltz’s vision, perseverance, and hard work (especially when it comes to assembling the citation data) and as such he deserves special thanks. Dustin was the first one to “see” a paper where the first author just saw a set of smart points usable to impress students in a seminar context. Dustin herded all of the cats, and made the seemingly quixotic attempt to write a seven-authored theory piece seem like a breeze. Of course, it was the intellectual input of all authors that ultimately made the paper more than the sum of its separate parts although we will spare you tired emergence analogies.
    [Show full text]
  • 4. Cognitive Heuristics: an Approach
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by OTHES DIPLOMARBEIT Titel der Diplomarbeit Cognitive Heuristics and Biases and Their Impact on Negotiations Verfasserin Martina Györik Angestrebter akademischer Grad Magistra der Sozial- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften (Mag. rer. soc. oec.) Wien, im November 2010 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt: A 157 Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt: Internationale Betriebswirtschaft Betreuer: O. Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr. Rudolf Vetschera Dedicated to my parents Table of Contents Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 2. The Nature of Human Decision Behavior .............................................. 3 2.1 The Architecture of Cognition .................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Problem Solving, Choice and Judgment .................................................................................. 4 2.3 An Outlook on Decision Analysis ............................................................................................ 6 3. Models of Rationality................................................................................... 9 3.1 Homo œconomicus ..................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 The Concept of Bounded Rationality ..................................................................................... 11 4. Cognitive
    [Show full text]
  • David G. Rand
    DAVID G. RAND Sloan School (E-62) Room 539 100 Main Street, Cambridge MA 02138 [email protected] EDUCATION 2006-2009 Ph.D., Harvard University, Systems Biology 2000-2004 B.A., Cornell University summa cum laude, Computational Biology PROFESSIONAL Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2019- Erwin H. Schell Professorship 2018- Associate Professor (tenured) of Management Science, Sloan School 2018- Secondary appointment, Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences 2018- Affiliated faculty, Institute for Data, Systems, and Society Yale University 2017-2018 Associate Professor (tenured) – Psychology Department 2016-2017 Associate Professor (untenured) – Psychology Department 2013-2016 Assistant Professor – Psychology Department 2013-2018 Appointment by courtesy, Economics Department 2013-2018 Appointment by courtesy, School of Management 2013-2018 Cognitive Science Program 2013-2018 Institution for Social and Policy Studies 2013-2018 Yale Institute for Network Science Applied Cooperation Team (ACT) 2013- Director Harvard University 2012-2013 Postdoctoral Fellow – Psychology Department 2011 Lecturer – Human Evolutionary Biology Department 2010-2012 FQEB Prize Fellow – Psychology Department 2009-2013 Research Scientist – Program for Evolutionary Dynamics 2009-2011 Fellow – Berkman Center for Internet & Society 2006-2009 Ph.D. Student – Systems Biology 2004-2006 Mathematical Modeler – Gene Network Sciences, Ithaca NY 2003-2004 Undergraduate Research Assistant – Psychology, Cornell University 2002-2004 Undergraduate Research Assistant – Plant Biology, Cornell University SELECTED PUBLICATIONS [*Equal contribution] Mosleh M, Arechar AA, Pennycook G, Rand DG (In press) Cognitive reflection correlates with behavior on Twitter. Nature Communications. Bago B, Rand DG, Pennycook G (2020) Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General. doi:10.1037/xge0000729 Dias N, Pennycook G, Rand DG (2020) Emphasizing publishers does not effectively reduce susceptibility to misinformation on social media.
    [Show full text]
  • Concepts of Rationality in Management Research
    No. 57 - March 2011 Concepts of Rationality in Management Research From Unbounded Rationality to Eco- logical Rationality by Jörn Basel and Rolf Brühl Concepts of Rationality in Man- agement Research From Unbounded Rationality to Eco- logical Rationality ISSN: 1869-5426 AUTHORS Dipl.-Psych. Jörn Basel Chair of Management Control ESCP Europe Business School Berlin Heubnerweg 6, 14059 Berlin Germany T: +49 (0) 30 / 3 20 07-139 F: +49 (0) 30 / 3 20 07-107 [email protected] Prof. Dr. Rolf Brühl Chair of Management Control ESCP Europe Business School Berlin EDITOR Heubnerweg 6, 14059 Berlin © ESCP Europe Wirtschaftshochschule Berlin Germany Heubnerweg 6, 14059 Berlin, Germany T: +49 (0) 30 / 3 20 07-136 T: +49 (0) 30 / 3 20 07-0 F: +49 (0) 30 / 3 20 07-107 F: +49 (0) 30 / 3 20 07-111 [email protected] [email protected] www.escpeurope.eu ABSTRACT: This paper sketches important concepts of rationality. It concentrates on bounded ration- ality and provides descriptions of the heuristics and bias program and of the fast and fru- gal heuristics program by Gerd Gigerenzer and colleagues (Gigerenzer, 2002; Gigerenzer, Todd, & the ABC Research Group, 1999; Todd & Gigerenzer, 2000). One objective is to link the underlying concept of ecological rationality in judgment and decision making with the field of management research. This area has been mostly dominated with ideas of the heuristics and biases program coined by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky (2000), with an emphasis of irrationality and lapses of peoples judgments and decisions. After an over- view of the historic development in this debate on rationality, this paper presents a sketch of the fast and frugal heuristic program as well as short impressions from two manage- ment disciplines in order to illustrate the fruitfulness.
    [Show full text]
  • Cooperation in Public Good Games. Calculated Or Confused?
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Goeschl, Timo; Lohse, Johannes Working Paper Cooperation in Public Good Games. Calculated or Confused? Discussion Paper Series, No. 626 Provided in Cooperation with: Alfred Weber Institute, Department of Economics, University of Heidelberg Suggested Citation: Goeschl, Timo; Lohse, Johannes (2016) : Cooperation in Public Good Games. Calculated or Confused?, Discussion Paper Series, No. 626, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics, Heidelberg, http://dx.doi.org/10.11588/heidok.00022247 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/162969 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu University of Heidelberg Department of Economics Discussion Paper Series No. 626 Cooperation in Public Good Games.
    [Show full text]
  • Humans Make Best Use of Social Heuristics When Confronting Hard Problems in Large Groups
    Humans make best use of social heuristics when confronting hard problems in large groups Federica Stefanelli1, Enrico Imbimbo1, Daniele Vilone2,3, Franco Bagnoli4, Zoran Levnaji´c5, Andrea Guazzini1 1Department of Education and Psychology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy 2Laboratory of Agent Based Social Simulation, Institute of Cognitive Science and Technology, National Research Council (CNR), Rome, Italy; 3Grupo Interdisciplinar de Sistemas Complejos (GISC), Departamento de Matem´aticas, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain 4Department of Physics and Astronomy & Center for Study of Complex Dynamics, University of Florence and INFN, Florence, Italy 5Faculty of Information Studies in Novo mesto, Novo Mesto, Slovenia Abstract We report the results of a game-theoretic experiment with human players who solve the problems of increasing complexity by cooperating in groups of increas- ing size. Our experimental environment is set up to make it complicated for players to use rational calculation for making the cooperative decisions. This environment is directly translated into a computer simulation, from which we extract the collaboration strategy that leads to the maximal attainable score. Based on this, we measure the error that players make when estimating the benefits of collaboration, and find that humans massively underestimate these benefits when facing easy problems or working alone or in small groups. In con- trast, when confronting hard problems or collaborating in large groups, humans accurately judge the best level of collaboration and easily achieve the maxi- mal score. Our findings are independent on groups’ composition and players’ personal traits. We interpret them as varying degrees of usefulness of social heuristics, which seems to depend on the size of the involved group and the arXiv:1808.07670v2 [physics.soc-ph] 8 Mar 2019 complexity of the situation.
    [Show full text]
  • Conducting Interactive Experiments Online
    DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. 10517 Conducting Interactive Experiments Online Antonio A. Arechar Simon Gächter Lucas Molleman JANUARY 2017 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. 10517 Conducting Interactive Experiments Online Antonio A. Arechar Lucas Molleman Yale University CeDEx, University of Nottingham and MPI for Human Development Simon Gächter CeDEx, University of Nottingham, CESifo and IZA JANUARY 2017 Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world’s largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author. IZA – Institute of Labor Economics Schaumburg-Lippe-Straße 5–9 Phone: +49-228-3894-0 53113 Bonn, Germany Email: [email protected] www.iza.org IZA DP No. 10517 JANUARY 2017 ABSTRACT Conducting Interactive Experiments Online* Online labor markets provide new opportunities for behavioral research, but conducting economic experiments online raises important methodological challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Balanced Social Psychology: Causes, Consequences, and Cures for the Problem-Seeking Approach to Social Behavior and Cognition
    BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2004) 27, 000–000 Printed in the United States of America Towards a balanced social psychology: Causes, consequences, and cures for the problem-seeking approach to social behavior and cognition Joachim I. Krueger Department of Psychology, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912. [email protected] http://www.brown.edu/departments/psychology/faculty/krueger.html David C. Funder Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92506 [email protected] http://www.psych.ucr.edu/faculty/funder/rap/rap.htm Abstract: Mainstream social psychology focuses on how people characteristically violate norms of action through social misbehaviors such as conformity with false majority judgments, destructive obedience, and failures to help those in need. Likewise, they are seen to violate norms of reasoning through cognitive errors such as misuse of social information, self-enhancement, and an over-readiness to at- tribute dispositional characteristics. The causes of this negative research emphasis include the apparent informativeness of norm viola- tion, the status of good behavior and judgment as unconfirmable null hypotheses, and the allure of counter-intuitive findings. The short- comings of this orientation include frequently erroneous imputations of error, findings of mutually contradictory errors, incoherent interpretations of error, an inability to explain the sources of behavioral or cognitive achievement, and the inhibition of generalized the- ory. Possible remedies include increased attention to the complete range of behavior and judgmental accomplishment, analytic reforms emphasizing effect sizes and Bayesian inference, and a theoretical paradigm able to account for both the sources of accomplishment and of error. A more balanced social psychology would yield not only a more positive view of human nature, but also an improved under- standing of the bases of good behavior and accurate judgment, coherent explanations of occasional lapses, and theoretically grounded suggestions for improvement.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dual-Process Approach to Human Sociality 1
    Running head: THE DUAL-PROCESS APPROACH TO HUMAN SOCIALITY 1 The dual-process approach to human sociality: A review Valerio Capraro1 Middlesex University London Correspondence: [email protected] THE DUAL-PROCESS APPROACH TO HUMAN SOCIALITY 2 Abstract Which social decisions are intuitive? Which are deliberative? The dual-process approach to human sociality has emerged in the last decades as a vibrant and exciting area of research. Here, I review the existing literature on the cognitive basis of cooperation, altruism, honesty, positive and negative reciprocity, and (act) utilitarianism. I conclude by introducing a game-theoretical framework that organizes the majority of the empirical regularities. This framework extends Rand and colleagues’ Social Heuristics Hypothesis to any one-shot game G. The core assumption of this “General Social Heuristics Hypothesis” is that, under intuition, people play a Nash equilibrium of the “real analogue of G”, Greal, while under deliberation people play a Nash equilibrium of G. Greal differs from G along two dimensions: G is one-shot, while Greal might be iterated; the payoffs of Greal might be different from the payoffs of G, although they are ordered in (almost) the same way. Keywords: dual-process, pro-sociality, cooperation, altruism, honesty, reciprocity, moral judgments. THE DUAL-PROCESS APPROACH TO HUMAN SOCIALITY 3 The dual-process approach to human sociality: A review We, humans, are unique in the animal kingdom for our capacity to live in large societies made of thousands, if not millions, of unrelated individuals. Bees, ants, and the mole naked rat, for example, live in large societies, but individuals in the same society tend to share a substantial degree of biological relatedness.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Group Identity As a Social Heuristics: an Experiment With
    Group Identity as a Social Heuristics: An Experiment with Reaction Times Antonio Filippin a & Francesco Guala b Università degli Studi di Milano CLASSIFICATION Major category: Social Sciences Minor category: Economic Sciences. a University of Milan, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods (DEMM), via Conservatorio 7, 20122 Milan, Italy, and Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Schaumburg-Lippe-Str. 5-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany. Email: [email protected]. b University of Milan, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods (DEMM), via Conservatorio 7, 20122 Milan, Italy. Email: [email protected]. 1 Abstract A large amount of evidence indicates that group identity influences social interactions and, in particular, economic decisions. In this paper we test the hypothesis that group identity triggers social norms or heuristics, using reaction times collected in a series of simple distributive tasks (mini-dictator games). We control for individual preferences using the degree of selfishness expressed in the allocation decisions, and we account for variations in the difficulty of decisions by conditioning on subject’s pro-social inclination. Our results support the heuristic hypothesis: generosity seems to be an effect of ‘fast and frugal’ behavioral rules that simplify decisions, especially when it conflicts with an underlying tendency to behave in a self-interested manner. In the language of ‘dual-process’ theories, group identity triggers ‘System 1’ processes that facilitate choice and override slow, calculative decision-making. Significance Groups play an important role in human sociality and human evolution. As a consequence, the capacity to identify group membership is a crucial cognitive skill that we constantly use to modulate our social interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing a Dual-Process Information Seeking Model For
    Developing A Dual-Process Information Seeking Model for Exploratory Search Michael Zarro Drexel University 3141 Chestnut Street Philadelphia PA 19104 [email protected] ABSTRACT system or domain knowledge. However, over time these In this work dual-process theory from the social patients can develop a level of expertise or wisdom about psychology domain is introduced to help understand their condition [15] resulting in a greater ability to exploratory search behaviors and relate them to searchers’ understand and process health information they encounter cognitive processes as they evaluate information resources. online – and thus changed information seeking behaviors. Our setting is the consumer health domain, where Searchers are likely to process the panoply of resources information seeking is often an exploratory search episode returned in Web search engines through cognitive methods involving searchers who have high motivation but low explained by dual-process theory from the social ability to find and cognitively process information psychology domain; the Elaboration Likelihood Model resources. Health consumers learn as they search, acquiring (ELM) [12] and the Heuristic Systematic Model (HSM) [4]. information from professional and peer-produced These models, developed through years of experimentation, resources. Interactions between user, interface, and content propose that humans cognitively analyze information in will be aggregated to form a model of exploratory search. parallel via two concurrent processes. The first process, Keywords central route (ELM) or systematic processing (HSM) is Exploratory search, health informatics, dual-process theory cognitively intensive, requiring logical analysis of content INTRODUCTION and comparison of newly encountered information to This work investigates exploratory search [10] behaviors in previously held notions.
    [Show full text]