Scribd
Upload
53 views2 pages

Paper 1: CA1 - Thinking and Decision-Making

The document summarizes the dual process model of thinking and decision making. It describes System 1 thinking as automatic, intuitive and effortless, relying on heuristics and previous experience. System 2 thinking is slower, more conscious and rational, considering all possible interpretations of information. One study found that when faced with complex choices involving a large amount of information, System 1 unconscious thinking led to more effective decisions than System 2 conscious thinking, which was overwhelmed. The unconscious thought group more accurately differentiated between apartments described by positive and negative attributes.

Uploaded by

david tsai
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
53 views2 pages

Paper 1: CA1 - Thinking and Decision-Making

The document summarizes the dual process model of thinking and decision making. It describes System 1 thinking as automatic, intuitive and effortless, relying on heuristics and previous experience. System 2 thinking is slower, more conscious and rational, considering all possible interpretations of information. One study found that when faced with complex choices involving a large amount of information, System 1 unconscious thinking led to more effective decisions than System 2 conscious thinking, which was overwhelmed. The unconscious thought group more accurately differentiated between apartments described by positive and negative attributes.

Uploaded by

david tsai
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Paper 1: CA1 – Thinking and decision-making 2019

Explain one theory or model of thinking or decision making with


reference to one study. (9)
Thinking is often seen as the process of using one’s mind to consider or reason about
an issue or problem, resulting in ‘thoughts’ however this definition implies that
thinking is a conscious exercise and many psychologists including Daniel Kahneman
agree that this is not always be the case.

A good deal of our cognitive processing happens unconsciously without us even


realising. One theory which explains this was proposed by Stanovich & West (2000)
and is referred to as the “Dual Process Model” also known as ‘System 1 and 2
thinking’.

System 1 thinking is automatic, intuitive and effortless. It makes use of heuristics or


mental shortcuts to make decisions or form judgements quickly, based on previous
experience. When using heuristics we may ignore some of the available information,
instead focusing on key details and using these as the basis for our decisions. While
this can sometimes be helpful, system 1 thinking can also be prone to errors. System
1 thinking can lead to high levels of confidence in our decisions and is often used
when the cognitive load is high, (Gilbert and Gill 2000).

System 2 thinking is slower, conscious, rational and more effortful. When employing
this style of thinking we may think carefully about all of the possible ways we could
interpret a situation, gradually eliminating possibilities based on all the available
sensory evidence, until we arrive at a solution. To this end system 2 can be
considered more ‘bottom up’ in comparison with system 1, which takes a more ‘top-
down’ approach. System 2 thinking is less likely to create feelings of certitude and
confidence in comparison to system 1 and answers may be thought of as ‘probable’
as opposed to ‘correct’.

It is thought that both systems can operate together and that system 1 is generally
activated first in order to reach a quick conclusion, before system 2 comes into play,
providing further analysis to hopefully reach a "more correct" conclusion.
Oftentimes, system 1 and 2 result in differing answers and these may interfere with
each other, making it difficult to come to a final conclusion.

One research study which demonstrates that system 1 thinking can be surprisingly
effective in certain situations was conducted by Ap Dijksterhuis (2004). He
hypothesised that system 1 thinking would be more effective than system 2 thinking
when making complex choices, due to the limited capacity of conscious thought.
Paper 1: CA1 – Thinking and decision-making 2019

63 undergraduates were shown 48 pieces of information about four rental


apartments and subsequently asked to rate the apartments on a 10 point scale. 12
pieces of information were given about each apartment. Apartment B was always
the most attractive (8 positive attributes and 4 negative) and Apartment D was
always least attractive (8 negative and 4 positive) with apartments A and C of
middling attractiveness, with 6 positive and 6 negative.

The control group had to make an instant decision, i.e. no time to think before rating
the apartments while the two experimental groups were given three minutes before
completing the rating scales. The thinking systems used by the two experimental
groups’ was manipulated by having one group complete a distractor task, so any
thinking about the apartments was unconscious (system one) whereas the other
group were allowed to think about the apartments consciously, so deploying system
two. The dependent variable was the ratings given to each apartment out of 10,
where 1 was extremely negative and 10 was extremely positive. This allowed the
researchers to see whether participants correctly rated apartment B more favourably
than apartment D.

The researchers found no significant difference in the mean attractiveness ratings


given to these apartments by participants in the control group and the conscious
thought group, suggesting those who used system 2 were overwhelmed by the
quantity of information and unable to successfully differentiate between the
apartments. The unconscious thought group on the other hand did return a
significant difference between apartments B and D of 1.23 (p<0.02) suggesting that
system 1 thinking was more effective than system 2 in the face of a large quantity of
information.
Dijksterhuis (2004) also found a gender difference whereby male participants
performed especially poorly in the instant decision group and exceptionally well in
the unconscious thought group, suggesting that males in particular may make better
choices when they delay making a decision and get on with something else until
they have had time to unconsciously organise the morass of information into a more
palatable form.

You might also like