Dual Process Theory: Systems, Types, Minds, Modes, Kinds or Metaphors? A Critical Review

Bellini-Leite, Samuel C.

doi:10.1007/s13164-017-0376-x

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…3 3 There is debate about the extent to which the two processes represent different systems of cognition or, more simply, different modes of reasoning (Bellini‐Leite 2018; Evans and Stanovich 2013; Pennycook 2018). In the audit setting, the distinction between more heuristic processes such as verifying management representations and more analytical processes aimed at finding the best estimate is likely one of reasoning mode.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Complex Audit Judgments: A Framework and Evidence*†

Griffith

Kadous

Young

2021

Contemporary Accting Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regulators and researchers provide evidence that auditors' judgment quality is problematic in complex audit tasks. We introduce a framework for improving auditor judgment in these tasks. The framework builds on dual‐process theory to recognize that high‐quality judgment in complex tasks requires that auditors (i) possess the knowledge needed for the task, (ii) recognize the need for analytical (versus heuristic) processing, and (iii) have sufficient cognitive capacity to complete the analytical processing. Based on the framework, we predict that auditors' need for cognition (NFC), a characteristic theoretically linked to recognizing the need for analytical processing, is associated with higher quality complex judgments. Analysis of 11 studies supports this assertion. We demonstrate the usefulness of the framework by predicting and finding that priming auditors with an accuracy goal improves judgments, particularly for lower NFC auditors, who are less likely to spontaneously engage in analytical processing. The framework facilitates systematic development of interventions to improve auditor judgment by highlighting that solutions should address the specific conditions causing judgment problems.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Complex Audit Judgments: A Framework and Evidence*†

Griffith

Kadous

Young

2021

Contemporary Accting Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researcher : "Are you asked to determine the perimeter of a quadrilateral or the perimeter of a square?" Based on dual-process theory, in addition to conceptual or procedural knowledge, there are two mental processes that need to be managed properly, so students can produce solutions (Babai et al, 2015;Bellini-leite, 2017;Borodin, 2016;De Neys, 2018;Durning et al, 2015). These two mental processes are system 1 and system 2.…”

Section: Studentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The characteristics of system 1 process are fast, allowing parallel, automatic, associative or matching process, and not flexible. On the other hand, the system 2 characteristics are slow, serial, controlled, systematic and flexible (Bago& De Neys, 2017;Bellini-leite, 2017;Handley & Trippas, 2015;Imbir, 2016;Stanovich & Evans, 2014). The conditions experienced by one of the 5 th grade students above can be explained by dualprocess theory.…”

Section: Studentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Levels of Students’ Feeling of Rightness (FOR) in Solving Polygon Perimeter Problems

Darmawan¹,

Purwanto²,

Parta³

et al. 2020

INT J INSTRUCTION

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research aimed to describe the levels of feeling of rightness (FOR) of students. This research used a qualitative method with an explorative type. The subjects of this research were 3 students of 5th grade selected from 77 other students in Indonesia. In uncovering FOR subject of this research, instruments were used in the form of problems about the open-ended polygon perimeter and interview guidelines. The data of this research were the subjects' answers to the problems of polygon perimeter and the results of interviews with subjects related to these answers. The data were analyzed using the FOR subject level indicator rubric. There were three levels of FOR which were the findings in this research, namely low, medium, and high. Low FOR level was indicated by the answers crossed out and the objectives or goal changed. Medium FOR level was indicated by crossed out answers, objectives or goals changed, problems text read repeatedly, indecisive statements about the truth of the answers that have been generated, and doubts in determining the steps to be taken. High FOR level was indicated by answers that were not crossed and goals that were not changed.

show abstract

“…As the literature presented earlier suggests, any reasons should be enough for heuristic decision making, whereas good reasons may be needed for more reflective decisions. Further theorising and additional measures to test hypotheses based on dual process models may be fruitfulbut we encourage researchers to see [74][75][76][77][78][79], and also consider a wider perspective from complexity and systems theory [80][81][82][83], which have recently been applied in public health [84][85][86].…”

Section: Implications For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simple and rationale-providing SMS reminders to promote accelerometer use: A within-trial randomised trial comparing persuasive messages

Heino¹,

Knittle²,

Haukkala³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[Paper published open access at BMC Public Health; http://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6121-2]Background: Literature on persuasion suggests compliance increases when requests are accompanied with a reason (i.e. the “because-heuristic”). The reliability of outcomes in physical activity research is dependent on sufficient accelerometer wear-time. This study tested whether SMS reminders—especially those that provided a rationale—are associated with increased accelerometer wear-time.Methods: We conducted a within-trial partially randomised controlled trial during baseline data collection in a school-based physical activity intervention trial. Of 375 participants (mean age=18.1), 280 (75%) opted to receive daily SMS reminders to wear their accelerometers. These 280 participants were then randomised to receive either succinct reminders or reminders including a rationale. Data was analyzed across groups using both frequentist and Bayesian methods.Results: No differences in total accelerometer wear minutes were detected between the succinct reminder group (Mdn=4909, IQR=3429–5857) and the rationale group (Mdn=4808, IQR=3571–5743); W=8860, p=0.65, CI95=-280.90–447.20. Similarly, we found no differences in wear time between participants receiving SMS reminders (Mdn=4859, IQR=3527–5808) and those not receiving them (Mdn=5067, IQR=3201–5885); W=10642.5, p=0.77, CI95=-424.20–305.30. Bayesian ANOVA favored a model of equal weartime means, over one of unequal means, by a Bayes Factor of 12.05. Accumulated days of valid accelerometer wear data did not differ either. Equivalence testing indicated rejection of effects more extreme than a Cohen’s d (standardised mean difference) of ± ~0.3.Conclusions: This study casts doubt on the effectiveness of using the because-heuristic via SMS messaging, to promote accelerometer wear time among youth. The because-heuristic might be limited to face-to-face communication and situations where no intention for or commitment to the behavior has yet been made. Other explanations for null effects include non-reading of messages, and reminder messages undermining the self-reminding strategies which would occur naturally in the absence of reminders.

show abstract

Dual Process Theory: Systems, Types, Minds, Modes, Kinds or Metaphors? A Critical Review

Cited by 15 publications

References 37 publications

Improving Complex Audit Judgments: A Framework and Evidence*†

Improving Complex Audit Judgments: A Framework and Evidence*†

The Levels of Students’ Feeling of Rightness (FOR) in Solving Polygon Perimeter Problems

Simple and rationale-providing SMS reminders to promote accelerometer use: A within-trial randomised trial comparing persuasive messages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About