Automatic and controlled components of judgment and decision making.
The categorization of inductive reasoning into largely automatic processes (heuristic reasoning) and controlled analytical processes (rule-based reasoning) put forward by dual-process approaches of judgment under uncertainty (e.g., K. E. Stanovich & R. F. West, 2000) has been primarily a matter of assumption with a scarcity of direct empirical findings supporting it. The present authors use the process dissociation procedure (L. L. Jacoby, 1991) to provide convergent evidence validating a dual-process perspective to judgment under uncertainty based on the independent contributions of heuristic and rule-based reasoning. Process dissociations based on experimental manipulation of variables were derived from the most relevant theoretical properties typically used to contrast the two forms of reasoning. These include processing goals (Experiment 1), cognitive resources (Experiment 2), priming (Experiment 3), and formal training (Experiment 4); the results consistently support the author's perspective. They conclude that judgment under uncertainty is neither an automatic nor a controlled process but that it reflects both processes, with each making independent contributions.
Ferreira
Mario B
MB
Department of Psychology and Education, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal. mabf@fpce.ul.pt
Garcia-Marques
Leonel
L
Sherman
Steven J
SJ
Sherman
Jeffrey W
JW
D000704:Analysis of Variance; D001332:Automatism / Q000523:psychology*; D003071:Cognition / Q000502:physiology; D003463:Cues; D003657:Decision Making / Q000502:physiology*; D005260:Female; D006040:Goals; D006801:Humans; D019545:Intuition / Q000502:physiology; D007600:Judgment / Q000502:physiology*; D007858:Learning / Q000502:physiology; D008297:Male; D008568:Memory / Q000502:physiology; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D013334:Students / Q000523:psychology; D013647:Task Performance and Analysis; D035501:Uncertainty