Dual-Process Theory as a Theory of the Classification of Information Processing Acts
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The article proposes a consideration of the dual-process theory of higher cognition as a theory of the classification of acts of information processing. One of the reasons why the dual-process approach has been criticized is the fact that the information processing process can sometimes have characteristics that undermine a clear-cut attribution to one of the two traditionally defined opposite types. To avoid this criticism, it is proposed that the object of classification should not be the processes of information processing, but separate acts of combining two units of information. Unlike a process, a particular act of information processing at a particular moment in time cannot simultaneously have opposite characteristics, nor can it simultaneously have and not have some characteristic. In order to show the qualitative difference between various information processing acts as falling individually into either Type 1 or Type 2 processing, it is proposed to classify them by a feature that is present in one type and absent in another. It is suggested to take conscious control as such a feature. As a result, in the information processing acts corresponding to Type 2 category, units of information are combined in a consciously controlled way, whereas in the acts to be considered as Type 1, those units either already are combined or combine autonomously due to the existence of indirect associative connections.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
By submitting his/her work to the Editorial Board, the author accepts, upon having his/her text recommended for publication, that Diametros applies the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license to the works we publish. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees. Anyone may read, download, copy, print, distribute or reuse these articles without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as the author and original source are properly cited. The author holds the copyright without any other restrictions. Full information about CC-BY: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.
References
Collins Online Dictionary (2020), “Continuum,” URL = https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/continuum [Accessed 01.02.2021].
Evans J.S.B.T. (2019), “Reflections on Reflection: The Nature and Function of Type 2 Processes in Dual-Process Theories of Reasoning,” Thinking & Reasoning 25 (4): 383–415.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2019.1623071
Evans J.S.B.T. (2018), “Dual Process Theory: Perspectives and Problems,” [in:] Current Issues in Thinking and Reasoning. Dual Process Theory 2.0, W. De Neys (ed.), Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, London, New York: 137–155.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315204550-9
Evans J.S.B.T., Stanovich K.E. (2013), “Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 8 (3): 223–241.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
Kahneman D. (2003), “A Perspective on Judgment and Choice: Mapping Bounded Rationality,” American Psychologist 58 (9): 697–720.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697
Kahneman D. (2011), Thinking Fast and Slow, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York.
Kahneman D., Frederick S. (2005), “A Model of Heuristic Judgment,” [in:] The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, K.J. Holyoak, R.G. Morrison (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK): 267–293.
Kelley D. (2014), The Art of Reasoning: An Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking (Fourth Edition), W.W. Norton & Company, New York, London.
Keren G. (2013), “A Tale of Two Systems: A Scientific Advance or a Theoretical Stone Soup? Commentary on Evans & Stanovich,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 8 (3): 257–262.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613483474
Keren G., Schul Y. (2009), “Two is Not Always Better Than One: A Critical Evaluation of Two-System Theories,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 4 (6): 533–550.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01164.x
Kruglanski A.W., Gigerenzer G. (2011), “Intuitive and Deliberate Judgments Are Based on Common Principles,” Psychological Review 118 (1): 97–109.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020762
Kruglanski A.W. (2013), “Only One? The Default Interventionist Perspective as a Unimodel-Commentary on Evans & Stanovich,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 8 (3): 242–247.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613483477
Moors A., De Houwer J. (2006), “Automaticity: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin 132 (2): 297–326.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.297
Morewedge C.K., Kahneman D. (2010), “Associative Processes in Intuitive Judgment,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14 (10): 435–440.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.07.004
Newstead S.E. (2000), “Are There Two Different Types of Thinking?,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5): 690–691.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0049343X
Osman M. (2004), “An Evaluation of Dual-Process Theories of Reasoning,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11 (6): 988–1010.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196730
Osman M. (2013), “A Case Study: Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition-Commentary on Evans & Stanovich,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 8 (3): 248–252.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613483475
Pennycook G. (2018), “A Perspective on the Theoretical Foundation of Dual Process Models,” [in:] Current Issues in Thinking and Reasoning. Dual Process Theory 2.0, W. De Neys (ed.), Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, London, New York: 5–27.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315204550-2
Pennycook G., Neys W., Evans J. et al. (2018), “The Mythical Dual-Process Typology,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 22 (8): 667–668.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.04.008
Schneider W., Shiffrin R.M. (1977), “Controlled and Automatic Human Information Processing: I. Detection, Search, And Attention,” Psychological Review 84 (1): 1–66.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.1.1
Shiffrin R.M., Schneider W. (1977), “Controlled and Automatic Human Information Processing: II. Perceptual Learning, Automatic Attending and a General Theory,” Psychological Review 84 (2): 127–190.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.127
Sloman S. (2014), “Two Systems of Reasoning: An Update,” [in:] Dual-Process Theories of the Social Mind, J.W. Sherman, B. Gawronski, Y. Trope (eds.), The Guilford Press, New York: 69–79.
Sloman S.A. (1996), “The Empirical Case for Two Systems of Reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin 119 (1): 3–22.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3
Stanovich K.E. (1999), Who is Rational?: Studies of Individual Differences in Reasoning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah (New Jersey).
Stanovich K.E., Toplak M.E. (2012), “Defining Features Versus Incidental Correlates of Type 1 and Type 2 Processing,” Mind & Society 11 (1): 3–13.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-011-0093-6
Stanovich K.E., West R.F. (2002), “Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate?,” [in:] Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, D. Kahneman (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK), New York: 421–440.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098.026
Thompson V.A. (2013), “Why it Matters: The Implications of Autonomous Processes for Dual Process Theories – Commentary on Evans & Stanovich,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 8 (3): 253–256.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613483476
Thompson V.A., Newman I.R. (2018), “Logical Intuitions and Other Conundra for Dual Process Theories,” [in:] Current Issues in Thinking and Reasoning. Dual Process Theory 2.0, W. De Neys (ed.), Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, London, New York: 121–136.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315204550-8