Internal Assessment: Psychology Higher Level
Title:
Dual-process Theory: The effect of thinking processes on the
level of reasoning.
Date: 7/6/2021
Word Count: 2198
Student Alphanumeric Code: jmr761
Group Alphanumeric Codes: jmr746, jmt359
Table of Contents
Introduction ...........................................................................................................1
Exploration .............................................................................................................2
Analysis .................................................................................................................4
Evaluation ..............................................................................................................5
Bibliography ...........................................................................................................7
Appendixes.............................................................................................................7
Appendix 1: Randomly assigning participants ........................................................7
Appendix 2: Procedure ............................................................................................8
Appendix 3: Ethical considerations..........................................................................8
Appendix 4: Standardized instructions ....................................................................9
Appendix 5: CRT questions ....................................................................................10
Appendix 6: Raw Data ...........................................................................................10
Appendix 7: Inferential statistics ...........................................................................11
, Introduction:
The Dual-Process theory was introduced by West and Stanovich (2000) (Evans and
Stanovich, 2013). The theory recognizes two model systems of thinking: system-1 and system-
2. System-1 is based on intuition; it is fast and experience-based, independent of cognitive
ability. However, this ‘fast’ model of thinking uses mental shortcuts called heuristics to come up
with answers quickly which makes it prone to errors. On the other hand, System-2 consists of a
deliberate, slow, and effortful way of thinking which involves consequential decision-making and
is associated to cognitive ability. This ‘slow’ system tends to lead to more accurate conclusions
and can be improved by practice. The theory therefore explains how both intuitive and rational
cognitive processes merge information, providing not only descriptive assessments of decision-
making, but leading to insights that improve the way decisions are made (Djulbegovic et al.,
2012).
The study done by Alter and Oppenheimer in 2007 aimed to investigate the effect of cognitive
disfluency on the use of rational thinking (system-2) over intuitive thinking (system-1) outlined by
the dual-process theory (Alter et al., 2007). it empirically supported the concept that people
have a systematic approach to reasoning when they experience cognitive disfluency. This was
demonstrated using an easy-to-read font and a difficult-to-read font on small word-problems
known as Cognitive Reflection Tasks (CRT). The distinct fonts were expected to force the
participant to activate different thinking systems; hence, the answers (correct or wrong) would
reflect the distinctions between the two systems outlined in the dual-process theory. 40
Princeton university undergraduate volunteers participated. These were randomly allocated to
one of two conditions and then given a CRT. The CRT was proposed by Frederick (2005) and
consisted of three questions intended to measure a person’s tendency to override an incorrect
“gut” response and engage in further intentional re-consideration to get the correct answer
(Frederick, 2005). More information regarding the CRT can be found in appendix 5. In this case,
the CRT was changed in one condition to manipulate font-fluency. Participants in the fluent
condition had to complete the CRT with an easy-to-read font, while the participants in the
disfluent condition had to complete the same with a difficult-to-read font. The results showed
that participants had more correct answers in the disfluent condition than those in the fluent
condition.
In this investigation, Alter and Oppenheimer’s study will be partially replicated. It will differ from
the original study in that our independent variable will be the system used (system-1 or system-
1
Title:
Dual-process Theory: The effect of thinking processes on the
level of reasoning.
Date: 7/6/2021
Word Count: 2198
Student Alphanumeric Code: jmr761
Group Alphanumeric Codes: jmr746, jmt359
Table of Contents
Introduction ...........................................................................................................1
Exploration .............................................................................................................2
Analysis .................................................................................................................4
Evaluation ..............................................................................................................5
Bibliography ...........................................................................................................7
Appendixes.............................................................................................................7
Appendix 1: Randomly assigning participants ........................................................7
Appendix 2: Procedure ............................................................................................8
Appendix 3: Ethical considerations..........................................................................8
Appendix 4: Standardized instructions ....................................................................9
Appendix 5: CRT questions ....................................................................................10
Appendix 6: Raw Data ...........................................................................................10
Appendix 7: Inferential statistics ...........................................................................11
, Introduction:
The Dual-Process theory was introduced by West and Stanovich (2000) (Evans and
Stanovich, 2013). The theory recognizes two model systems of thinking: system-1 and system-
2. System-1 is based on intuition; it is fast and experience-based, independent of cognitive
ability. However, this ‘fast’ model of thinking uses mental shortcuts called heuristics to come up
with answers quickly which makes it prone to errors. On the other hand, System-2 consists of a
deliberate, slow, and effortful way of thinking which involves consequential decision-making and
is associated to cognitive ability. This ‘slow’ system tends to lead to more accurate conclusions
and can be improved by practice. The theory therefore explains how both intuitive and rational
cognitive processes merge information, providing not only descriptive assessments of decision-
making, but leading to insights that improve the way decisions are made (Djulbegovic et al.,
2012).
The study done by Alter and Oppenheimer in 2007 aimed to investigate the effect of cognitive
disfluency on the use of rational thinking (system-2) over intuitive thinking (system-1) outlined by
the dual-process theory (Alter et al., 2007). it empirically supported the concept that people
have a systematic approach to reasoning when they experience cognitive disfluency. This was
demonstrated using an easy-to-read font and a difficult-to-read font on small word-problems
known as Cognitive Reflection Tasks (CRT). The distinct fonts were expected to force the
participant to activate different thinking systems; hence, the answers (correct or wrong) would
reflect the distinctions between the two systems outlined in the dual-process theory. 40
Princeton university undergraduate volunteers participated. These were randomly allocated to
one of two conditions and then given a CRT. The CRT was proposed by Frederick (2005) and
consisted of three questions intended to measure a person’s tendency to override an incorrect
“gut” response and engage in further intentional re-consideration to get the correct answer
(Frederick, 2005). More information regarding the CRT can be found in appendix 5. In this case,
the CRT was changed in one condition to manipulate font-fluency. Participants in the fluent
condition had to complete the CRT with an easy-to-read font, while the participants in the
disfluent condition had to complete the same with a difficult-to-read font. The results showed
that participants had more correct answers in the disfluent condition than those in the fluent
condition.
In this investigation, Alter and Oppenheimer’s study will be partially replicated. It will differ from
the original study in that our independent variable will be the system used (system-1 or system-
1
