Advertisement

Mind & Society

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 93–105 | Cite as

Analytic thinking: do you feel like it?

  • Valerie Thompson
  • Kinga Morsanyi
Article

Abstract

A major challenge for Dual Process Theories of reasoning is to predict the circumstances under which intuitive answers reached on the basis of Type 1 processing are kept or discarded in favour of analytic, Type 2 processing (Thompson 2009). We propose that a key determinant of the probability that Type 2 processes intervene is the affective response that accompanies Type 1 processing. This affective response arises from the fluency with which the initial answer is produced, such that fluently produced answers give rise to a strong feeling of rightness. This feeling of rightness, in turn, determines the extent and probability with which Type 2 processes will be engaged. Because many of the intuitions produced by Type 1 processes are fluent, it is common for them to be accompanied by a strong sense of rightness. However, because fluency is poorly calibrated to objective difficulty, confidently held intuitions may form the basis of poor quality decisions.

Keywords

Fluency heuristic Affect Dual process theories Intuition Analytic thinking Reasoning Decision making Feeling of rightness 

References

  1. Alter AL, Oppenheimer DM (2006) Predicting short-term stock fluctuations by using processing fluency. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:9369–9372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th edn. Author, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamin AS, Bjork RA, Schwartz BL (1998) The mismeasure of memory: when retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. J Exp Psychol Gen 127:55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bless H, Bohner G, Schwarz N, Strack F (1990) Mood and persuasion: a cognitive response analysis. Pers Soc Psychol B 16:331–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burton RA (2008) On being certain: believing you are right even when you’re not. St. Martin’s Griffin, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  6. Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Losch ME, Kim HS (1986) Electromyographic activity over facial muscle regions can differentiate the valence and intensity of affective reactions. J Pers Soc Psychol 50:260–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Costermans J, Lories G, Ansay C (1992) Confidence level and feeling of knowing in question answering: the weight of inferential processes. J Exp Psychol Learn 18:142–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davidson D (1995) The representativeness heuristic and the conjunction fallacy effect in children’s decision making. Merrill Palmer Q 41:328–346Google Scholar
  9. De Neys W, Cromheeke K, Osman M (2011) Biased but in doubt: conflict and decision confidence. PloS One 6(1):1–10Google Scholar
  10. Dunlosky J, Bjork RA (eds) (2008) Handbook of metamemory and memory. Psychology Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  11. Emery CF, Blumenthal JA (1991) Effects of physical exercise on psychological and cognitive functioning in older adults. Ann Behav Med 13:99–107Google Scholar
  12. Epstein S (2010) Demystifying intuition: what it is, what it does, and how it does it. Psychol Inq 21:295–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evans JSBT (2010) Intuition and reasoning: a dual-process perspective. Psychol Inq 21:313–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frederick S (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. J Econ Perspect 19:25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gagnon L, Peretz I (2003) Mode and tempo relative contributions to “happy-sad” judgments in equitone melodies. Cogn Emot 17:25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gärling T, Kirchler E, Lewis A, van Raaij F (2009). Psychology, financial decision making, and financial crises. Psychol Sci Public Interest 10(1):1–47Google Scholar
  17. Greifeneder R, Bless H (2007) Relying on accessible content versus accessibility experiences: the case of processing capacity. Soc Cogn 25:853–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haidt J (2001) The emotional dog and it’s rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev 108:814–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haidt J (2008) Morality. Perspect Psychol Sci 3:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansen J, Dechene A, Wanke M (2008) Discrepant fluency increases subjective truth. J Exp Soc Psychol 44:687–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hertwig R, Gigerenzer G (1999) The “conjunction fallacy” revisited: how intelligent inferences look like reasoning errors. J Behav Decis Mak 12:275–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hertwig R, Herzog SM, Schooler LJ, Reimer T (2008) Fluency heuristic: a model of how the mind exploits a by-product of information retrieval. J Exp Psychol Learn 34:1191–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Higgins ET (1998) The aboutness principle: a pervasive influence on human inference. Soc Cogn 16:173–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hogarth R (2010) Intuition: a challenge for psychological research on decision making. Psychol Inq 21:338–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacobs JE, Potenza M (1991) The use of judgment heuristics to make social and object decision: a developmental perspective. Child Dev 62:166–178Google Scholar
  26. Jacoby LL, Kelley CM, Dywan J (1989) Memory attributions. In: Roediger HL III, Craik FIM (eds) Varieties of memory and consciousness: essays in honour of Endel Tulving. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 391–422Google Scholar
  27. Kahneman D (2003) A perspective on judgement and choice: mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol 58:697–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kelley CM, Lindsay SD (1993) Remembering mistaken for knowing: ease of retrieval as a basis for confidence in answers to general knowledge questions. J Mem Lang 32:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klaczynski PA (2009) Cognitive and social cognitive development: dual-process research and theory. In: Evans JBST, Frankish K (eds) In two minds: psychological and philosophical theories of dual processing. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 265–292Google Scholar
  30. Koriat A (2007) Metacognition and consciousness. In: Zelazo PD, Moscovitch M, Thompson E (eds) The Cambridge handbook of consciousness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NY, pp 289–326Google Scholar
  31. Koriat A, Ackerman R (2010) Choice latency as a cue for children’s subjective confidence in the correctness of their answer. Dev Sci 13:441–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kruger J, Dunning D (1999) Unskilled and aware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol 77:1121–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lehrer J (2009) How we decide. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  34. Manktelow K, Evans JS (1979) Facilitation of reasoning by realism: effect of non-effect? Br J Psychol 70:477–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mazzoni G, Cornoldi C (1993) Strategies in study time allocation: why is study time sometimes not effective? J Exp Psychol Gen 122:47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Morsanyi K, Handley SJ (2008) How smart do you need to be to get it wrong? The role of cognitive capacity in the development of heuristic-based judgment. J Exp Child Psychol 99:18–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morsanyi K, Handley SJ (2012) Logic feels so good—I like it! Evidence for intuitive detection of logicality in syllogistic reasoning. J Exp Psychol Learn (in press)Google Scholar
  38. Nelson TO (1993) Judgments of learning and the allocation of study time. J Exp Psychol Gen 122:269–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oppenheimer DM (2004) Spontaneous discounting of availability in frequency judgment tasks. Psychol Sci 15:100–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Oppenheimer DM, Frank MF (2008) A rose in any other font would not smell as sweet: effects of perceptual fluency on categorization. Cognition 106:1178–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pacini R, Epstein S (1999) The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. J Pers Soc Psychol 76:972–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Plessner H, Betsch C, Betsch T (2008) Intuition in judgement and decision making. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  43. Podbregar M, Voga G, Krivec B, Skale R, Pareznik R, Gabrscek L (2001) Should we confirm our clinical diagnostic certainty by autopsies? Intensive Care Med 27:1750–1755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pronin E, Wegner DM (2006) Manic thinking: independent effects of thought speed and thought content on mood. Psychol Sci 17:807–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Prowse Turner JA, Thompson VA (2009) The role of training, alternative models, and logical necessity in determining confidence in syllogistic reasoning. Think Reason 15:69–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Raghunathan R, Pham MT (1999) All negative moods are not equal: motivational influences of anxiety and sadness on decision making. Organ Behav Hum Decis 79:56–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reber R, Schwarz N (1999) Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Conscious Cogn 8:338–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Reber R, Schwarz N, Winkielman P (2004) Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Pers Soc Psychol Rev 8:364–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reder LM, Ritter FE (1992) What determines initial feeling of knowing? Familiarity with question terms, not with the answer. J Exp Psychol Learn 18:435–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reyna VF, Ellis SC (1994) Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in children’s risky decision making. Psychol Sci 5:275–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Robinson MD, Johnson JT, Herndon F (1997) Reaction time and assessments of cognitive effort as predictors of eyewitness memory accuracy and confidence. J Appl Psychol 82:416–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roediger H, McDermott K (1995) Creating false memories: remembering words not presented in lists. J Exp Psychol Learn 21:803–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rotliman A, Schwarz N (1998) Constructing perceptions of vulnerability: personal relevance and the use of experiential information in health judgements. Pers Soc Psychol B 24:1053–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scherer KR, Ellgring H (2007) Are facial expressions of emotion produced by categorical affect programs or dynamically driven by appraisal? Emotion 7:113–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schwartz B, Benjamin AS, Bjork RA (1997) The inferential and experiential bases of metamemory. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 6:132–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schwarz N (2004) Meta-cognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. J Consum Psychol 14:332–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schwarz N (in press). Feelings-as-information theory. In Van Lange P, Kruglanski A, Higgins ET (eds) Handbook of theories of social psychology. Sage, CAGoogle Scholar
  58. Shynkaruk JM, Thompson VA (2006) Confidence and accuracy in deductive reasoning. Mem Cogn 34:619–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Siemer M, Reisenzein R (1998) Effects of mood on evaluative judgements: influence of reduced processing capacity and mood salience. Cogn Emot 12:783–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Simmons JP, Nelson LD (2006) Intuitive confidence: choosing between intuitive and nonintuitive alternatives. J Exp Psychol Gen 135:409–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sinclair M (2010) Misconceptions about intuition. Psychol Inq 21:378–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Son LK (2004) Spacing one’s study: evidence for a metacognitive control strategy. J Exp Psychol Learn 3:601–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Son LK, Metcalfe J (2000) Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. J Exp Psychol Learn 26:204–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Song H, Schwarz N (2008) If it’s hard to read, it’s hard to do: processing fluency affects effort prediction and motivation. Psychol Sci 19:986–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sporer SL, Penrod S, Read D, Cutler B (1995) Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: a meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eye witness identification studies. Psychol Bull 118:315–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stanovich KE (2004) The robot’s rebellion: finding meaning in the age of Darwin. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  67. Stanovich KE (2011) Rationality and the reflective mind. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. Thompson VA (2009) Dual process theories: A metacognitive perspective. In: Evans J, Frankish K (eds) In two minds: dual processes and beyond. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  69. Thompson VA (2010) Towards a dual process model of conditional inference. In: Oaksford M (ed) The psychology of conditionals. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  70. Thompson VA, Prowse-Turner J, Pennycook G (2011) Intuition, reason & metacognition. Cogn Psychol 63:107–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Topolinski S, Reber R (2010) Gaining insight into the “aha” experience. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 19:402–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Topolinski S, Strack F (2009a) Scanning the “fringe” of consciousness: what is felt and what is not felt in intuitions about semantic coherence. Conscious Cogn 18:608–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Topolinski S, Strack F (2009b) The architecture of intuition: fluency and affect determine intuitive judgments of semantic and visual coherence and judgments of grammaticality in artificial grammar learning. J Exp Psychol Gen 138:39–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Topolinski S, Likowski KU, Weyers P, Strack F (2009) The face of fluency: semantic coherence automatically elicits a specific pattern of facial muscle reactions. Cogn Emot 23:260–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Whittlesea BWA, Leboe JP (2003) Two fluency heuristics (and how to tell them apart). J Mem Lang 49:62–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Winkielman P, Cacioppo JT (2001) Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation leads to positive affect. J Pers Soc Psychol 81:989–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Winkielman P, Schwarz N, Fazendeiro T, Reber R (2003) The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgement. In: Musch J, Klaur KC (eds) The psychology of evaluation: affective processes in cognition and emotion. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 189–217Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of PlymouthPlymouth, DevonUK

Personalised recommendations