1. Do people make rational decisions?

Thinking 2. Are human errors in thinking and

and/or decision making predictable?
3. Can we measure thinking in a
decision quantifiable way?
4. Can we really measure thinking or just
making its outcome? (knowing – TOK)
SAQ’s

This question is about thinking and/or decision making, in the SAQ they could word in the
following ways:

Describe one explanation of thinking/decision making, with reference to ONE study.

Describe/explain rational (controlled) thinking/decision making, with reference to ONE

study.

Describe/explain intuitive thinking (automatic) thinking and/or decision making, with

reference to ONE study

Contoso
Suites
2
Can you read this?

Contoso
Suites
3
Learning outcome: Discuss ONE or more model of
thinking and decision making

• You will be able to describe the Dual processing model (system 1 and system 2)

• You will be able to describe and evaluate research (we can then use research in biases
in thinking and decision making)

• You will be able to evaluate the model in terms of strengths and limitations

Contoso
Suites
4
What is dual processing model?

The dual-processing model, also known as the dual-process theory, is a cognitive framework that suggests we have two
systems or modes of thinking:

System 1: This is the intuitive, automatic, and often unconscious mode of thought. It's fast and requires little to no effort
to engage. System 1 thinking often relies on mental shortcuts known as "heuristics" to make quick decisions. This
system is also responsible for routine actions and immediate reactions.

System 2: This is the deliberative, analytical, and conscious mode of thought. It's slow, requires effort, and is often
associated with rational thinking, problem-solving, and planning. System 2 thinking is engaged when we make
deliberate decisions, solve complex problems, or are learning something new.

In the context of decision making, these two systems often interact and can potentially conflict. For example, a person
might feel an immediate, automatic preference for a particular choice (System 1) but upon reflection and analysis
(System 2), might decide to choose differently.

Contoso
Suites
5
 The Stanford Marshmallow
Experiments

Watch these kids

try to resist the
temptation of a
marshmallow.

Link
Contoso
Suites
What were these kids thinking?

Contoso
Suites
Contoso
Suites
Impulse control and emotional regulation: This is the ability to suppress a desire for
immediate gratification in order to achieve a larger reward later. It's part of the executive
functions, a set of cognitive processes including attentional control, cognitive inhibition,
inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility.

Future orientation: This involves the capacity to think about the future, an important
aspect of decision making. Children who were able to wait might have had a better
understanding of future benefits, which influenced their decision to delay gratification.

Distraction techniques and coping strategies: Some of the children who were successful
in waiting employed distraction techniques like looking away from the marshmallow or
covering their eyes. This shows the role of cognitive strategies in managing self-control.

Concept of time: Younger children often have a less developed concept of time which
might influence their decision-making process. Waiting for a specified amount of time
might seem longer to them than it actually is.

Contoso
Suites
9
Now I want you to think about the above 4 factors. Tell me which processing
was involved? System 1? System 2?
• Impulse control and emotional regulation: These are predominantly governed by System 1 processes, which are
automatic and immediate. Children who are unable to resist the immediate gratification of the marshmallow are
likely operating under this system. However, their capacity to control these impulses and regulate their emotions
to achieve a greater future reward could be seen as a function of System 2, as it involves more deliberate and
conscious decision-making.

• Future orientation: This is related to System 2 processing because it involves careful, deliberate consideration of
future outcomes, not just immediate responses or desires. Children who were able to wait for the second
marshmallow were likely engaging their System 2 thinking in order to consider the long-term benefits.

• Distraction techniques and coping strategies: These could involve both systems. For instance, automatically looking
away from the marshmallow when feeling the urge to eat it could be a System 1 response. However, consciously
deciding to employ a particular strategy to distract oneself requires a more deliberate System 2 process.

• Concept of time: A less developed concept of time in younger children might be related to the dominance of
System 1 thinking, which is more present-focused. As children mature and their concept of time develops, they
might be better able to engage their System 2 thinking to consider future rewards.

Contoso
Suites
10
How do we define decision making and thinking?

• Thinking involves using information and doing something with it.

• Thinking and decision making are closely related.

• Thinking is based on factors such as concepts, processes and goals. Decision making is
making choices, and this involves thinking.

• Modern research into thinking and decision-making often refers to rational thinking
(controlled) and intuitive thinking (automatic).

• There is a growing research to help us understand more about how emotion may
influence thinking and decision making, the consequences of emotion impacting our
choices, in the present and future. (later on, in this module) Contoso
Suites
11
Write these terms

• Rational thinking (controlled)—goal-orientated and requires

intentional effort and time, analyses/controls for biases

• Intuitive thinking (automatic)—automatic, quick thinking; requires

limited effort and is influenced by biases

Contoso
Suites
12
Watch the following as an introduction to the dual
processing model

https://youtu.be/UBVV8pch1dM Contoso
Suites
13
 Quick Question – 5 seconds to answer

• Steve is a tidy and quiet man.

• Has a passion for detail.
• He has little interest in people.
• He was drawn from random
from the American population.
Answer: Farmer!
• Is he more likely to be a farmer There are over 20x as many

or a librarian? male farmers as male librarians

in the USA, so the chances are
much higher that he’d be a
farmer. Contoso
Suites
 R
Another quick question… 5 seconds to answer

• A word is drawn at
random from the
dictionary
• Is it more likely that
the word begins with Answer: Third letter!
R, or has R as the There are nearly three times as
many words that have r as the
third letter? third letter, as those that have r
as the first.
Contoso
Suites
Final quick question… 5 seconds to answer
• A town has two hospitals: one large
and one small.
• Large has about 45 births per day,
small one about 15.
• On a typical day, which hospital is
most likely to have over 60%
percent boys born?

a) The smaller one

b) The larger one
Answer: A
c) About the same
The smaller the sample, the
more probable that the split
• Source: Vanity Fair Kahnemann Quiz isn’t 50/50 (larger sample =
(Link)
closer to averages).
Contoso
Suites
The Dual Process Model of Decision Making

• Watch the video about decision making (0 – 10:40)(Link)

• Don’t write anything – just watch and listen
• Try to remember the answers to these questions:
• How does Kahnemann test people’s way of thinking and making
decisions?
• What’s the difference between a random error and a bias?
• What two sides are in a battle with each other when we make a
decision?

Contoso
Suites
Dual processing - System 1

• Focuses on what it sees and ignores missing information

• Based on past experiences and knowledge (schemas)

• It is quick but that makes it prone to errors

• It takes short-cuts, these are called heuristics (or biases)

• It operates automatically
Contoso
Suites
18
Dual processing – system 2
• This system requires us to concentrate and use effort when processing.

• It can work with abstract concepts

• Works through logic

• You use conscious reasoning

• This is far more reliable but is much slower

• It is rational and controlled thinking

Contoso
Suites
19
Stroop Test
Activities

• So what did this activity suggest about our thinking?

Contoso
Suites
23
Stroop test

Contoso
Suites
24
Stroop test

• The Stroop test is a classic psychological experiment

that measures cognitive processing speed and the
ability to suppress automatic responses. It was first
introduced by John Ridley Stroop in 1935. The test is
widely used in psychology and neuroscience to assess
attention, cognitive control, and interference.

Contoso
Suites
25
Original Stroop test
• The Original Stroop Test:

• In the original Stroop test, participants are presented with a list of color
names (e.g., RED, BLUE, GREEN) printed in different ink colors. The task is
to name the ink color while ignoring the word's meaning. The test typically
includes congruent and incongruent trials:

• Congruent Trials: In these trials, the color word matches the ink color (e.g.,
the word "RED" is printed in red ink). Participants find it relatively easy to
name the ink color correctly in these cases.

• Incongruent Trials: In incongruent trials, the color word does not match
the ink color (e.g., the word "BLUE" is printed in red ink). This creates
interference between the word's meaning and the ink color, making it more
challenging for participants to correctly identify the ink color.
Contoso
Suites
26
The Stroop effect

• The Stroop effect refers to the phenomenon where

people take longer to identify the ink color in
incongruent trials compared to congruent trials. This
delay occurs because reading the word's meaning is an
automatic process, and inhibiting this automatic
response requires cognitive effort and control.

Contoso
Suites
27
Possible SAQs

• Describe the multistore model with reference to one

study.

• Describe the working memory model with reference to

one study.

• Describe schema theory, with reference to one relevant

study.

• Explain one theory of thinking and decision making.

Contoso
Suites
28
Contoso
Suites
29
How do these systems work together?

• In this model of thinking, people use two types of thinking to handle

information and complex tasks - system 1 and system 2 thinking.

• In system 1 thinking, the thinking process is fast, automatic and based on

previous experience. As we practice something, it moves from requiring
system 2 thinking to system 1 thinking.

• For example, this would be how one ties a shoe after repeated practice;
the process has become automatic. System 2 thinking is slower, more
deliberate and effortful, but also less prone to mistakes.

Contoso
Suites
30
• We tend to use this system in unfamiliar situations when our system 1 thinking is not
working. However, we prefer to use system 1 thinking as we are cognitive misers.

• System 1 thinking uses mental shortcuts called heuristics - such as anchoring bias -
where we fail to think logically about a decision using System 2 thinking and base our
decisions on information that is immediately available to us.

• Anchoring Bias - tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered
(the "anchor") when making decisions. During decision making, anchoring occurs when
individuals use an initial piece of information to make subsequent judgments. The use
of anchors has many different effects on behaviour.

Contoso
Suites
31
One example

• Plassman et al (2008) showed the effect of anchoring on wine tasting. They had
participants sample wine while in an fMRI. Participants were told they were tasting
five different Cabernet Sauvignons. The different wines were identified only by their
retail prices. But the participants were deceived; there were actually only three
different wines. The fourth wine was the same as the first wine, and the fifth wine was
the same as the second one.
• They found that the price served as an anchor for deciding on the pleasantness of the
wine - when the wine was thought to be $90 a bottle, not only did they report it was a
better wine, but they showed more activity in their medial orbitofrontal cortex, an
area that is associated with experiencing pleasure.

Contoso
Suites
32
What is heuristics?

• less time-consuming method of making decisions. When using heuristics, people are
selective in terms of the options they consider when making a decision. In a way,
heuristics are mental shortcuts that which can often be effective, which is why they
tend to be used. There is no guarantee of success, but this approach is more practical in
terms of time and effort required.

• heuristics may incorrectly apply familiar schemas to situations that do not match.

• system 1 thinking is more likely to promote bias in decision making. it often applies
cognitive schemas as heuristics

Contoso
Suites
33
Tversky & Kahnemann (1974). (anchoring bias)

Aim
To investigate if the anchoring bias has an effect when estimating the value of a math
problem

Method
Lab experiment

Contoso
Suites
Tversky & Kahnemann (1974). (anchoring bias)

• In this study, high school students were used as participants. (independent measures design)

• Participants in the “ascending condition” were asked after 5 seconds to estimate the value of 1 X
2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 X 7 X 8. Those in the “descending condition” were asked within 5 seconds to
estimate the value of 8 X 7 X 6 X 5 X 4 X 3 X 2 X 1.

• Since we read from left to right, the researchers assumed that group 1 would use "1" as an
anchor and predict a lower value that the group that started with "8" as the anchor.

• The expectation was that the first number seen would bias the estimate of the value by the
participant. The researchers found that the median for the ascending group was 512; the median
for the descending group was 2250. The actual value is 40320.

Contoso
Suites
How does the study support system 1?

• The study demonstrates the difference between the systems.

• By using system 1 participants have made estimated based on the first piece
of information they have been given, so this is quick and automatic rather
than controlled decision making. This is because they were given 5 seconds
to make a decision.

• This then demonstrates how sometimes our thinking and decision making
becomes automatic as we look for shortcuts, in this case the first number
presented caused a significant difference in their estimates.

Contoso
Suites
36
How does the study support anchoring bias?

• The results of this study demonstrate the effect of the anchoring bias in
decision making. Since the participants did not have time to calculate fully,
their decision relied partially on the anchor given to them. They tend to rely
on the first piece of information they receive, to serve as a mental anchor,
influencing subsequent estimation.

• This then demonstrates the influence of anchoring bias on decision-making.

Contoso
Suites
37
Evaluation – Limitation
Construct validity
1. Construct validity refers to the extent to which a study accurately measures or assesses
the theoretical construct it intends to study. The researchers designed the study to
examine the influence of anchoring on participants' estimations of the multiplication
problem.
The study employed a simplified task of multiplying numbers sequentially. This task might
not fully represent the complexities of real-life decision-making scenarios where anchoring
bias typically occurs. It might not accurately reflect how anchoring bias operates in more
complex decision-making situations.

Contoso
Suites
38
Evaluation
2. The experiment has low ecological validity. The situation is very artificial. It is not too
often in life that we have only five seconds to estimate the value of something. It is
questionable to what extent the findings can be applied. However, as shown in the studies
above, there is evidence that anchoring is shown in other situations.

3. The study was an independent measure design. This means that participant variability
may have played a role in the results. It would be better to have a matched pairs design to
attempt to have two groups with an equivalent level of Math competency.

Contoso
Suites
39
Evaluation

4. The study is a very simple experiment that is easily replicated, allowing us to establish the
reliability of the results. The study is highly controlled and has high internal validity. It can
be inferred that the anchor was the cause of the higher (or lower) estimates by the
students.

5. (this can be another strength) The researchers used the median to report the data. This
allowed the researchers to diminish the influence of outliers on the reporting of the data.

Contoso
Suites
40
Supporting evidence 2
Englich and Mussweiler (2001)

Read up the study description on pg 23

Contoso
Suites
41
Supporting evidence 2
Englich and Mussweiler (2001) Add this as the introduction

The Dual Processing Model argues that there are two ways in which we make decisions.
First, there is System 1 thinking; this system is reliant on past information and schema with
the goal of making a quick and effortless decision based on limited information. System 2
thinking, however, is much more effortful and requires more conscious reasoning.

When we use System 1 thinking we tend to use mental shortcuts called heuristics. One
example of a heuristic is “anchoring bias.” Anchoring bias occurs when we rely too heavily
on an initial piece of information offered (considered to be the "anchor") when making
decisions. Often this information is numeric.

In the courtroom, in many countries, often a sentence is demanded or recommended by a

prosecutor. Psychologists Englich and Mussweiler wanted to know if the simple request for
a certain length of a prison sentence would unduly influence the decision made by a judge.

Contoso
Suites
42
Supporting evidence 2
Englich and Mussweiler (2001) Conclusion/Link

They found that anchoring bias could play a significant role in determining sentencing in
courtrooms, even when those determining the sentence would be considered experts (law
students) and not laymen as in a real court in the US.

Englich and Mussweiler's (2001) study therefore illustrates anchoring bias in a legal
context. The judges' sentencing decisions were unduly influenced by the prosecutor's
proposed sentence, which serves as a mental anchor.

Contoso
Suites
43
Supporting evidence 2
Englich and Mussweiler (2001) Evaluation
The study was a true experiment, allowing the researchers to infer a cause-and-effect
relationship between the value of the anchor and the sentence.

The use of an independent samples design means that participant variability may have
played a role in the results - serving as a confounding variable.

The sample size is small. It is difficult to generalize the findings. In addition, the sample was
limited in courtroom experience - which means that the results can best be generalized to
younger, less experienced judges.

The use of the pilot group helped to establish reasonable anchors. In addition, the pilot
group demonstrated System 2 thinking, serving as a control group for the other two
conditions.

The low scores on the judges' sense of confidence indicate that they may have been aware
that their judgment was being influenced by other factors. Contoso
Suites
44
Supporting evidence 2
Englich and Mussweiler (2001) How does this demo
anchoring bias?
Englich and Mussweiler's (2001) study therefore illustrates anchoring bias in a legal
context. The judges' sentencing decisions were unduly influenced by the prosecutor's
proposed sentence, which serves as a mental anchor.

Contoso
Suites
45
Critical thinking
Does the above studies show that all people use heuristics (system one) when processing
information?

When participants provide answers to the above problem, there are not consequences for
their decisions. Does this affect the generalizability of these results to other situations? Can
you think of situations where people might be less likely to use system one (heuristics) to
make decisions because of consequences?

What factors might affect individual differences in processing information

Does the dual processing model and the associated studies suffer from cultural biases?
(These were studied mainly in Western countries). Can you think of any reasons to think
why we might not expect the same results in some cultures?

Why is understanding how we process information a relevant field of study? Can you think
of any potential applications of this research?
Contoso
Suites
46
Critical thinking
Evaluating Dual processing model
The model is considered overly simplistic.
The model works on a dichotomy – thinking is either system 1 or system 2.
Many psychologists argue that cognition is much more complex than the model argues.
Construct is difficult to measure. It is difficult to determine with certainty which system was
used at any one time. The actual use of a heuristic is difficult to measure in natural
situations.
The theory is considered robust.
The theory can be applied to explain all types of decision-making, as well as how cognitive
biases could be overcome. It has been applied in marketing as well as a strategy for
changing health behaviour.
There is also biological support for the argument that abstract and concrete tasks may be
carried out by using different parts of the brain (eg. Gilead et al, 2013).
However, even Kahneman says that “there is no part of the brain that either of the system
would call home.”

Contoso
Suites
47
Critical thinking
approaches to research
ethical considerations
Contrast 2.

Contoso
Suites
48