Bridging the Vocabularies of Dual-Process Models of Culture and Cognition

Author(s):  
Jacob Strandell

Much research has demonstrated that human behavior can never be fully accounted for by deliberate rationality, as much of what happens in the human mind occurs outside of our awareness and beyond conscious control. Contemporary dual-process theories attempt to detail this duality of the human mind by distinguishing between two fundamentally different types of cognitive processes: on the one hand the nonconscious, automatic, and intuitive; and the conscious, deliberate, and rational on the other. These models also attempt to describe how the two types of processes interact with each other, and how various contextual factors influence their relationship. Dual-process models of cognition have proven useful in many fields of study, yet sociological use of these models to understand the micromechanisms of culture have been largely limited until very recently. This chapter aims to provide insight into dual-process models of cognition and their close resemblance with many core cultural theories, which already employ dual-process reasoning without recognizing or integrating their insights with each other or those of the cognitive sciences. It is argued that by developing a more integrated and interdisciplinarily accessible vocabulary, we can readily integrate and make better use of insights from dual-process models of cognition. Finally, important implications for our understanding of culture and for future research are discussed.

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S258-S258
Author(s):  
Michael Bronstein ◽  
Gordon Pennycook ◽  
Jutta Joormann ◽  
Philip Corlett ◽  
Tyrone Cannon

Abstract Background Individuals endorsing delusions exhibit multiple reasoning biases, including a bias toward lower decision thresholds, a bias toward gathering less data before forming conclusions, and a bias toward discounting evidence against one’s beliefs. Although these biases have been repeatedly associated with delusions, it remains unclear how they might arise, how they might be interrelated, and whether any of them play a causal role in forming or maintaining delusions. Progress toward answering these questions may be made by examining delusion-related reasoning biases from the perspective of dual-process theories of reasoning. Dual-process theories posit that human reasoning proceeds via two systems: an intuitive system (which is autonomous, does not require working memory) and an analytic system (which relies on working memory, supports hypothetical thought). Importantly, when the outputs of one or both systems conflict with one another, successful detection of this conflict is thought to produce additional engagement in analytic reasoning. Thus, the detection of and ensuing neurocognitive response to conflict may modulate analytic reasoning engagement. Working from this dual-process perspective, recent theories have hypothesized that more limited engagement in analytic reasoning, perhaps resulting from conflict processing deficits, may engender delusion-inspiring reasoning biases in people with schizophrenia. Methods Given this hypothesis, a literature review (Bronstein et al., 2019, Clinical Psychology Review, 72, 101748) was conducted to critically evaluate whether impaired conflict processing might be a primary initiating deficit in pathways relevant to the generation of delusion-relevant reasoning biases and the formation and/or maintenance of delusions themselves. Results Research examined in this review suggested that in healthy people, successful conflict detection raises decision thresholds. Conflict-processing deficits in delusional individuals with schizophrenia might impair this process. Consistent with this possibility, delusional individuals with schizophrenia (vs. healthy controls) make more decisions when they perceive their favored choice to be only marginally better than alternatives. Lower decision thresholds in individuals who endorse delusions may limit analytic thinking (which takes time). Reductions in decision-making thresholds and in analytic reasoning engagement may encourage these individuals to jump to conclusions, potentially promoting delusion formation, and may also increase bias against disconfirmatory evidence, which may help delusions persist. Discussion Extant literature suggests that conflict processing deficits might encourage delusion-related cognitive biases, which is broadly consistent with the idea that these deficits may be causally primary in pathways leading to delusions. This conclusion lends credence to previous theories suggesting that reduced modulation toward analytic reasoning in the presence of conflict might promote delusions. Future research should attempt to more specifically determine the source of deficits related to analytic reasoning engagement in delusional individuals with schizophrenia. It is often unclear whether analytic-reasoning-related deficits observed in existing literature result from impairments in conflict detection, responsiveness to conflict, or both. Tasks used to study dual-process reasoning in the general population may be useful platforms for specifying the nature of analytic-reasoning-related deficits in delusional individuals with schizophrenia.


Author(s):  
Keith E. Stanovich ◽  
Richard F. West ◽  
Maggie E. Toplak

Because the operationalization of rational thinking comes from the heuristics and biases tradition, this chapter explicates the logic of heuristics and biases tasks in terms of contemporary theories of the functional architecture of the human mind. A tripartite model of the mind is described that is based on current dual-process theories. With this model as a framework, it is easy to see that the concept of rationality and the concept of intelligence are two different things. Rationality is actually a more encompassing mental construct than is intelligence. Thus, as measures of rationality, the tasks in the heuristics and biases literature, while tapping intelligence in part, actually encompass more cognitive processes and knowledge than are assessed by IQ tests.


2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cathy H. C. Hsu ◽  
Nan Chen

The value of attribution theory in explaining and predicting resident perceptions of/reactions toward tourists is underestimated by tourism scholars. This article critically analyses the evolution and underdevelopment of attribution theory, as well as the literature on tourist stereotypes which serve as heuristics that may bias attribution. Under the guidance of dual process theories, a comprehensive conceptual framework is developed to delineate the interactions between a three-step resident attribution process of encounters with tourists and tourist stereotypes’ activation, application/suppression, and modification. Potentially fruitful directions are suggested for future research. This conceptual article not only pioneers in establishing conceptual links between a tourism phenomenon and a social psychological theoretical development, but it also broadens the research paradigm of resident–tourist relationship studies.


2018 ◽  
Vol 115 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian M. Monroe ◽  
Bryan L. Koenig ◽  
Kum Seong Wan ◽  
Tei Laine ◽  
Swati Gupta ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 460-460
Author(s):  
Reinout W. Wiers ◽  
Remco Havermans ◽  
Roland Deutsch ◽  
Alan W. Stacy

AbstractThe model of addiction proposed by Redish et al. shows a lack of fit with recent data and models in psychological studies of addiction. In these dual process models, relatively automatic appetitive processes are distinguished from explicit goal-directed expectancies and motives, whereas these are all grouped together in the planning system in the Redish et al. model. Implications are discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document