Evidence Dual process theory

1 evidence

1.1 belief bias effect
1.2 tests working memory
1.3 fmri studies
1.4 near-infrared spectroscopy
1.5 matching bias
1.6 evolution
1.7 issues dual-process account of reasoning

evidence
belief bias effect

a belief bias tendency judge strength of arguments based on plausibility of conclusion rather how support conclusion. evidence suggests bias results competition between logical (system 2) , belief-based (system 1) processes during evaluation of arguments.

studies on belief-bias effect first designed jonathan evans create conflict between logical reasoning , prior knowledge truth of conclusions. participants asked evaluate syllogisms are: valid arguments believable conclusions, valid arguments unbelievable conclusions, invalid arguments believable conclusions, , invalid arguments unbelievable conclusions. participants told agree conclusions logically follow premises given. results suggest when conclusion believable, people erroneously accept invalid conclusions valid more invalid arguments accepted support unpalatable conclusions. taken suggest system 1 beliefs interfering logic of system 2.

tests working memory

de neys conducted study manipulated working memory capacity while answering syllogistic problems. done burdening executive processes secondary tasks. results showed when system 1 triggered correct response, distractor task had no effect on production of correct answer supports fact system 1 automatic , works independently of working memory, when belief-bias present (system 1 belief-based response different logically correct system 2 response) participants performance impeded decreased availability of working memory. falls in accordance knowledge system 1 , system 2 of dual-process accounts of reasoning because system 1 shown work independent of working memory, , system 2 impeded due lack of working memory space system 1 took on resulted in belief-bias.

fmri studies

researcher conducting functional magnetic resonance imaging test.

vinod goel , others produced neuropsychological evidence dual-process accounts of reasoning using fmri studies. provided evidence anatomically distinct parts of brain responsible 2 different kinds of reasoning. found content-based reasoning caused left temporal hemisphere activation whereas abstract formal problem reasoning activated parietal system. concluded different kinds of reasoning, depending on semantic content, activated 1 of 2 different systems in brain.

a similar study incorporated fmri during belief-bias test. found different mental processes competing control of response problems given in belief-bias test. prefrontal cortex critical in detecting , resolving conflicts, characteristic of system 2, , had been associated system 2. ventral medial prefrontal cortex, known associated more intuitive or heuristic responses of system 1, area in competition prefrontal cortex.

near-infrared spectroscopy

tsujii , watanabe did follow-up study goel , dolan s fmri experiment. examined neural correlates on inferior frontal cortex (ifc) activity in belief-bias reasoning using near-infrared spectroscopy (nirs). subjects performed syllogistic reasoning task, using congruent , incongruent syllogisms, while attending attention-demanding secondary task. interest of researchers in how secondary-tasks changed activity of ifc during congruent , incongruent reasoning processes. results showed participants performed better in congruent test in incongruent test (evidence belief bias); high demand secondary test impaired incongruent reasoning more impaired congruent reasoning. nirs results showed right ifc activated more during incongruent trials. participants enhanced right ifc activity performed better on incongruent reasoning decreased right ifc activity. study provided evidence enhance fmri results right ifc, specifically, critical in resolving conflicting reasoning, attention-demanding; effectiveness decreases loss of attention. loss of effectiveness in system 2 following loss of attention makes automatic heuristic system 1 take over, results in belief bias.

matching bias

matching bias non-logical heuristic. matching bias described tendency use lexical content matching of statement 1 reasoning, seen relevant information , opposite well, ignore relevant information doesn t match. affects problems abstract content. doesn t involve prior knowledge , beliefs still seen system 1 heuristic competes logical system 2.

example of wason selection task.

the wason selection task provides evidence matching bias. test designed measure of person s logical thinking ability. performance on wason selection task sensitive content , context presented. if introduce negative component conditional statement of wason selection task, e.g. if there 1 side of card there not 3 on other side , there strong tendency choose cards match items in negative condition test, regardless of logical status. changing test test of following rules rather truth , falsity condition participants ignore logic because follow rule, e.g. changing test test of police officer looking underaged drinkers. original task more difficult because requires explicit , abstract logical thought system 2, , police officer test cued relevant prior knowledge system 1.

studies have shown can train people inhibit matching bias provides neuropsychological evidence dual-process theory of reasoning. when compare trials before , after training there evidence forward shift in activated brain area. pre-test results showed activation in locations along ventral pathway , post-test results showed activation around ventro-medial prefrontal cortex , anterior cingulate. matching bias has been shown generalise syllogistic reasoning.

evolution

dual-process theorists claim system 2, general purpose reasoning system, evolved late , worked alongside older autonomous sub-systems of system 1. success of homo sapiens lends evidence higher cognitive abilities above other hominids. mithen theorizes increase in cognitive ability occurred 50,000 years ago when representational art, imagery, , design of tools , artefacts first documented. hypothesizes change due adaptation of system 2.

most evolutionary psychologists not agree dual-process theorists. claim mind modular, , domain-specific, disagree theory of general reasoning ability of system 2. have difficulty agreeing there 2 distinct ways of reasoning , 1 evolutionarily old, , other new. ease discomfort, theory once system 2 evolved, became long leash system without genetic control allowed humans pursue individual goals.

issues dual-process account of reasoning

the dual-process account of reasoning old theory, noted above. according evans has adapted old, logicist paradigm, new theories apply other kinds of reasoning well. , theory seems more influential in past questionable. evans outlined 5 fallacies :

another argument against dual-process accounts reasoning outlined osman proposed dichotomy of system 1 , system 2 not adequately accommodate range of processes accomplished. moshman proposed there should 4 possible types of processing opposed two. implicit heuristic processing, implicit rule-based processing, explicit heuristic processing, , explicit rule-based processing.

another fine-grained division follows: implicit action-centered processes, implicit non-action-centered processes, explicit action-centered processes, , explicit non-action-centered processes (that is, four-way division reflecting both implicit-explicit distinction , procedural-declarative distinction).

in response question whether there dichotomous processing types, many have instead proposed single-system framework incorporates continuum between implicit , explicit processes.