Dual processing model ERQ

Dual Processing Model

A cognitive model suggesting two systems of thinking: System 1: Fast, intuitive, automatic. System 2: Slow, analytical, effortful.

Importance of Dual Processing Model

It explains how we make decisions efficiently but also why we sometimes make errors when we rely too heavily on intuition.

Aim of Tversky & Kahneman's Multiplication Task

To see whether people rely on heuristics (System 1) when making numerical estimates under time pressure.

Participants in Tversky & Kahneman's Study

University students.

Procedure of Tversky & Kahneman's Multiplication Task

Two groups estimated the total of a multiplication problem in 5 seconds: Group 1: 8 × 7 × 6... Group 2: 1 × 2 × 3...

Results of Tversky & Kahneman's Study

Group 1 (high starting numbers): median = 2,250. Group 2 (low starting numbers): median = 512. Participants used anchors instead of calculating.

Conclusion of Tversky & Kahneman's Study

Participants used System 1 heuristics (anchoring), showing intuitive, fast thinking.

Evaluation of Tversky & Kahneman's Study

✅ Strength – Demonstrates reliance on System 1 heuristics

• The study clearly shows how people use anchoring and heuristics (System 1) when under time pressure.

• The first few numbers strongly influence the estimate—supporting the idea that fast, intuitive thinking leads to biased results.

⚠ Limitation – Artificial task lacks ecological validity

• Estimating long multiplication under time pressure is not a natural real-world decision.

• Lacks mundane realism — the cognitive processes observed may not reflect how people think in more meaningful or emotional real-life decisions.

• This could limit the generalizability of findings beyond lab settings.

Aim of Alter & Oppenheimer (2007)

To see if disfluency (hard-to-read font) would activate System 2 thinking and improve reasoning.

Participants in Alter & Oppenheimer's Study

40 Princeton students.

Procedure of Alter & Oppenheimer's Study

Participants completed the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) in either an easy-to-read or hard-to-read font.

Results of Alter & Oppenheimer's Study

Fluent group: 10% got all correct. Disfluent group: 65% got all correct. Disfluency triggered deeper (System 2) thinking.

Conclusion of Alter & Oppenheimer's Study

Making a task disfluent encourages System 2 processing and reduces reliance on intuitive (System 1) errors.

Evaluation of Alter & Oppenheimer's Study

✅ High replicability, strong evidence for dual processing. ❌ Small, elite sample; limited generalizability, low ecological validity

Findings from Both Studies on System 1 and System 2

T&K: People default to System 1 under pressure. A&O: Making tasks harder triggers System 2 and better reasoning.

Implications for Decision-Making in Daily Life

While we rely on System 1 for efficiency, slowing down and activating System 2 can improve accuracy.

Activity of Both Systems

No. The systems interact, but people often default to System 1 unless the situation demands deeper thought.

Explanation of the Dual Processing Model

It explains the balance between speed and accuracy in thinking and decision-making and why people make predictable errors.

Support for the Dual Processing Model from Studies

Tversky & Kahneman show intuitive errors from System 1. Alter & Oppenheimer show that System 2 can override intuition when activated.

Evaluation of dual processing model - pros

Empirical support, real world applications (people often make dumb decisions under pressure)

Limitations of dual processing model

• Oversimplification

  • Human thinking is not always so binary.

  • System 1 and System 2 may interact more fluidly than the model suggests.

• Vague Definitions

  • Sometimes it’s unclear where one system ends and the other begins.

  • The model doesn't always specify how or when we shift from one system to the other.

• Cultural and Individual Differences

  • Most research is Western-centric.

  • Not all cultures or individuals rely on the same heuristics or show the same system preferences.

• Alternative Models

  • Some psychologists argue for continuum models or adaptive decision-making frameworks, which may offer more flexibility.