Dual Systems theory

• What is thinking?


  Thinking is the process of using knowledge and information to make plans, interpret and make predictions of the world. The several components of thinking include problem-solving, creativity, reasoning and decision making.
• What is decision making?

  Decision making is the process of identifying and choosing alternatives based on the values and preferences of the decision maker. It is how judgements and decisions are made, and may be influenced by many factors.
• What is system 1?

  Is responsible for automatic processing (walking, eating when hungry, sleeping when tired, etc).

  It is holistic and intuitive, based on heuristics. Heuristics are mental shortcuts that involve focusing on one aspect of a problem and ignoring others.

  Automatic processing involves shortcuts, internal rules and processes. The more tired an individual is, the more likely they are to use system 1, as one does not need to think or try very hard to use it. It is also emotional.

  System 1 is fast, allowing almost instant response in many situations, that is usually accurate and effective, but does rely on heuristics and is prone to errors. As it does not take very much mental energy to carry out, it saves mental energy for when it is required.

  It operates in the now, and creates bias and stereotypes based on previous experience (schemas). When cognitive load is high, individuals are more likely to use system 1.

  It is centred within the limbic system.
• What is system 2?


  Is used for situations where one needs to focus on their thoughts, consciously thinking through key factors to reach logical, calculated and informed decisions. Mental shortcuts are ignored, situations are broken down to building blocks of information, and logic is used to reach a decision and conclusion.

  Although it takes a lot of effort and is slow, it produces more reasoned answers.

  It is conscious, voluntary, detached from emotions, explicit, controlled, high-effort, small capacity, slow, more objective and logical.

  To use system 2, individuals must be more motivated. the more system 2 is used, the better the decisions made will be. most challenges individuals may face are due to their tendency to use system 1 rather than system 2.

  When system 2 is at work, self control goes down. Biases are still present, but influence rational decisions.

  It is centred in the neocortex.
• What is the limbic system?


  Includes the hypothalamus, thalamus, hippocampus and amygdala, and is involved in emotion and motivation. It will be activated in choices that involve immediate outcomes, like system 1 thinking.
• What is the prefrontal cortex?


  It is a section of the brain, involved in higher cognitive functions, and is activated by delayed choices that require thought., like system 2 thinking.
• What is metacognition?


  Metacognition is the awareness and understanding of one's own thought processes.
• What is cognitive disfluency?


  Cognitive disfluency is the metacognitive experience of difficulty associated with completing a mental task
• How can the dual systems theory explain addiction?


  This theory may be used to explain addiction - Addictive substances or behaviours activate the reward system, which involves system 1. Controlled processes include cognitive regulation mechanisms like willpower, involving system 2. Because system 2 takes more mental effort, people suffering from addiction will use the automatic processes of system 1 and its reward system, enabling their addiction.

  It also offers a biological explanation for addiction- the Ventral Tegmental area is a key component of the brains reward pathway, containing dopamine-producing neurons that send projections to the nucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex. When a participant engages in a pleasurable activity, the dopamine neurons are activated, which reinforces the behaviour, making the individual more likely to repeat it. The VTA is within the limbic system, and therefore system 1.
• What are some strengths of the Dual systems theory?


  Biological evidence to support that different types of thinking are processed in different areas of the brain

  There are many reliable studies to support the theory

  Research into anchoring bias supports the DST, through the unreliable and automatic nature of system 1 (heuristics)
• What are some weaknesses of the dual systems theory?


  It is reductionist- does not explain how the two systems interact

  The definitions are not clear- sometimes system 1 may be slow

  It is unclear how the two systems are mapped in the brain
• What was McClure et al (2004)'s aim?


  To use a delay-discounting experiment to examine the neural correlates of short-term and long-term preferences for money rewards.
• What was McClure et al (2004)'s procedure?


  Participants were given a choice of receiving smaller sums of money earlier, or larger sums of money later, while their brains were being scanned in an fMRI. The sums ranged from $5 to $40, with the time of receival ranging from the day of the experiment to six weeks later.

  The type of questions asked were: 'would you rather have £1 now or £2 tomorrow?' (easy question) or 'Would you rather have £20 now or £27 in two weeks?' (hard question).

  At the end of the experiment, one of the participants choices was selected at random, and they were given the amount that they chose at the time that they chose.
• What were McClure et al (2004)'s findings?


  Parts of the limbic system that were associated with the dopamine system (reward neurotransmitter) were activated more by decisions involving immediate rewards.

  Regions of the prefrontal cortex were activated more by the long-term options, meaning that participants spend longer thinking about what do do with larger sums of money that are awarded after a longer period of time.
• What was McClure et al (2004)'s conclusion?


  Higher levels of thinking are centred in the prefrontal cortex (system 2) and fast, emotional and impulsive thinking is centred in the limbic system (system 1). The conclusions support the dual processes theory of their being two different brain systems, centred in tow different areas.
• What are some strengths of McClure et al (2004)'s study?


  Demonstrates the involvement of the limbic system and decision making

  May be applied to addiction or impatient behaviour as explains how the limbic system is activated (reward neurotransmitters) when presented with a short-term reward

  supports Dual systems theory as two different areas of the brain are clearly activated for two different situations
• What are some weaknesses of McClure et al (2004)'s study?


  Participant variability may be an extraneous variable

  Different participants may have different reasons for their choices, which is not clear in the study (for example, adolescents tend to be more impulsive, which is not clear in this study)

  Does not demonstrate any relationship between the two types of thinking, only that two different areas of the brain are activated for two different types of thinking

  This study is culturally biased- US based- and needs to be cross-cultural for accurate generalisation

  The results did not specify a point at which the decisions switched from system 1 to system 2, and it is possible that individuals have different points at which the decisions switch systems

  There may be time periods when both areas of the brain are activated, as are both systems, which means both the study and the theory have a level of uncertainty
• What is thin slicing?


  Thin slicing is the process of making quick inferences about the state, characteristics or details of any given thing with minimal amounts of information.
• What is the Specific Affect coding system?


  The specific affect (SPAFF) coding system was developed by Gottman to thin slice the way that married couples communicate- allowing him to predict how likely it is that couples will be together in six years time based on three minutes of the first marriage counselling conversation.
• What was Carrere and Gottman (1999)'s aim?


  To investigate whether psychologists are able to accurately predict if a couple in marriage counselling would end up divorced after only a few minutes of conversation.
• What was Carrere and Gottman (1999)'s procedure?


  124 newlyweds from Seattle were selected, and were asked to complete a survey individually. The results were discussed with a researcher to identify one or two problematic issues in their relationship.

  The issues were used as a basis for a 15-minute discussion that was video recorded and coded using SPAFF. Couples were checked once a year for six years to see if they were still married. SPAFF scores were compared with couples that were still together after the six years, and couples who were not. Results/SPAFF scores were based entirely on the first 3 minutes of discussion
• What were Carrere and Gottman (1999)'s findings?


  Through SPAFF, communications between couples doomed to divorce contained far more indications of negative emotions, and far less indications of positive emotions. (system 1 thinking is emotionally based).

  This is true for both husbands and wives, but the system is more successful when applied to husbands. This may reflect a tendency for men to be less emotionally honest in terms of acknowledging negative aspects of their relationship.
• What was Carrere and Gottman (1999)'s conclusion?


  Research with SPAFF suggests that it is possible to learn to improve intuitive thinking. Supports DST as in moments of conflict, individuals experience strong emotional reactions ( System 1 processes).

  Couples who can regulate their emotions through system 2 and higher levels of thinking, are more likely to maintain positive relationships. These couples use System 2 to counteract the automatic emotional responses of System 1, creating more constructive dialogues.
• What are some strengths with Carrere and Gottman (1999)'s study?


  High in ecological validity

  May be applied to inform marital counselling and relationship therapy
• What are some weaknesses with Carrere and Gottman (1999)'s study?


  High bidirectional ambiguity

  Culturally biased sample is not generalisable

  There may be ethical concerns
• What was Tversky and Kahneman (1974)'s aim?

  To investigate anchoring bias with a mathematical problem
• What was Tversky and Kahneman (1974)'s procedure?


  A sample of high school students were randomly assigned to two conditions:

  The ascending condition were asked to estimate the value of 1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8 in five seconds

  The descending condition were asked to estimate the value of 8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1 in five seconds

  The researchers assumed that the ascending group would use 1 as an anchor, as you read from left to right, and therefore estimate a lower value than the descending group, who would have used 8 as an anchor.
• What were Tversky and Kahneman (1974)'s findings?


  The median for the ascending group was 512, the median for the descending group was 2250. The actual value is 40320.
• What was Tversky and Kahneman (1974)'s conclusion?


  The first piece of information is relied on to make decisions. The findings support anchoring bias as the participants relied on the first piece of information to make decisions. It also supports the DST by finding evidence for system 1 thinking-fast and impulsive
• What are some strengths of Tversky and Kahneman (1974)'s study?


  It is a simple experiment that is easily replicated, allowing reliability to be established

  Highly controlled so high internal validity

  Supports DST and anchoring bias
• What are some weaknesses of Tversky and Kahneman (1974)'s study?

  Low ecological validity as is artificial

  The median was used to report the data- may not be representative

  Participant variability may have altered results
• What was Englich and Mussweiler (2001)'s aim?


  To determine the effect of a prosecutors suggestion for sentencing on the decision-making of a judge
• What was Englich and Mussweiler (2001)'s procedure?


  Englich and Mussweiler were interested in finding if the request for a certian length of sentence could influence the decision made by a judge.

  They conducted a pilot study on 24 senior law students, collecting advice from highly experienced trial judges. The average reccomended prison term suggested was 17.21 months, which was then used as a basis for determining anchors.

  Using an independent samples design, the researchers used the same case study for both conditions: One being the low anchor and the other being the high anchor.

  The sample was 19 trial judges (15 male and 4 female) with an average age of 29.37 and average 9.34 months of experience.

  The participants were given a case of alleged rape, the prosecutor in one condition demanding 2 months, and in the other, demanding 34 months.

  The participants were given the case materials along with copies of the penal code, asked to read through them and form an opinion on the case. After 15 minutes, they were given a questionnaire, half of them told that the prosecutor demanded 2 months and the other 34. They were also asked:

  Do you think the sentence was too low, adequate, too high?

  What sentence would you recommend?

  how certian are you about your sentencing decision? (1-9)

  How realistic do you think this case is? (1-9)
• What were Englich and Mussweiler (2001)'s findings?

  The average rating for the realism of the case was 7.17. The judges certainty was on average 4.53. The low anchor condition had an average sentence of 18.78 months, and the high anchor condition had an average sentence of 28.7 months.
• What was Englich and Mussweiler (2001)'s conclusion?


  Anchoring bias may affect decision making when issuing a sentence, as the participants relied on the first piece of information when making decisions. Also supports DST as evidences system 1 thinking (fast, impulsive) and system 2 thinking (slow, rational)
• What are some strengths of Englich and Mussweiler (2001)'s study?


  It was a true experiment, allowing a cause and effect relationship to be determined

  Pilot study established reasonable anchors and also supported DST as demonstrated system 2 thinking as opposed to the actual study demonstrating system 1 thinking
• What are some weaknesses of Englich and Mussweiler (2001)'s study?


  Participant variability may have been present

  Difficult to generalise as small sample used
• What was Alter et al (2007)'s aim?


  To investigate whether system 2 may be deliberately activated to correct system 1, and establish that cognitive disfluency causes individuals to use rational thinking over intuitive thinking (system 2 over system 1). Their hypothesis was that participants would answer more of the CRT items correctly when they were printed in a difficult-to-read font than when they were printed in an easy-to-read-font.
• What was Alter et al (2007)'s procedure?


  A volunteer sample of 40 undergraduates from Princeton were asked to complete a CRT (cognitive reflection test) individually, randomly assigned to two experimental conditions:

  Condition one was the fluent condition, with the CRT printed in an easy-to-read-font

  Condition two was the disfluent condition in a difficult-to-read-font

  The dependent variable was how many items on the CRT were answered correctly.
• What were Alter et al (2007)'s findings?


  Participants answered more questions correctly when the font was difficult to read- 2.45 correct with the disfluent font, and 1.9 correct with the fluent font.