Daniel Kahneman: A Perspective on Judgment and Choice
Intuition and Accessibility
Intuitive judgments occupy a position between the automatic operations of perception and the deliberate
operations of reasoning.
There is a two-system view, which distinguished intuition from reasoning.
The Two-System View
There is a distinguish the two types of cognitive processes labeled System 1 and System 2.
1. The operations of System 1 are typically fast, automatic, effortless, associative, implicit (not available to
introspection), and often emotionally charged; they are also governed by habit and are therefore difficult
to control or modify.
2. The operations of System 2 are slower, serial, effortful, more likely to be consciously monitored and
deliberately controlled; they are also relatively flexible and potentially rule governed.
The effect of concurrent cognitive tasks provides the most useful indication of whether a given mental process
belongs to System 1 or System 2. Because the overall capacity for mental effort is limited, effortful processes tend
to disrupt each other, whereas effortless processes neither cause nor suffer much interference when combined
with other tasks.
In the model that is presented here, the perceptual system and the intuitive operations of System 1
generate impressions of the attributes of objects of perception and thought.
In contrast, judgments are always intentional and explicit even when they are not overtly expressed. Thus,
System 2 is involved in all judgments, whether they originate in impressions or in deliberate reasoning.
Intuition was associated with poor performance, but intuitive thinking can also be powerful and accurate.
Research has argued that skilled decision makers often do better when they trust their intuitions than when they
engage in detailed analysis.
, The Accessibility Dimension
A core property of many intuitive thoughts is that under appropriate circumstances, they come to mind
spontaneously and effortlessly, like percepts.
The question is: To understand intuition, then, one must understand why some thoughts come to mind more easily
than others, why some ideas arise effortlessly and others demand work. ???
The central concept is: accessibility—the ease (or effort) with which particular mental contents come to mind. The
accessibility of a thought is determined jointly by the characteristics of the cognitive mechanisms that produce it
and by the characteristics of the stimuli and events that evoke it.
The behaviorists similarly viewed the explanation of “habit strength” or “response strength” as the main task of
psychological theory.
The determinants of accessibility subsume the notions of stimulus salience, selective attention, specific training,
associative activation, and priming.
Accessibility is a continuum, not a dichotomy, and some effortful operations demand more effort than others.
The acquisition of skill selectively increases the accessibility of useful responses and of productive ways to organize
information.
Determinants of Accessibility
What becomes accessible in any particular situation is mainly determined, of course , by the actual properties of
the object of judgment.
Physical salience also determines accessibility: If a large green letter and a small blue letter are shown at the same
time, green will come to mind first. However, salience can be overcome by deliberate attention. Motivationally
relevant and emotionally arousing stimuli spontaneously attract attention.
Accessibility also reflects temporary states of priming and associative activation, as well as enduring operating
characteristics of the perceptual and cognitive systems.
Natural assessments, are routinely and automatically registered by the perceptual system or by System1 without
intention or effort. List of natural assessments with no claim to completeness. In addition to physical properties
such as size, distance, and loudness, the list includes more abstract properties such as similarity, causal propensity,
surprisingness, affective valence and mood.
Accessibility itself is a natural assessment—the routine evaluation of cognitive fluency in perception and memory.
Uncertainty is poorly represented in intuition, as well as in perception. Indeed, the concept of judgment heuristics
was invented to accommodate the observation that intuitive judgments of probability are mediated by attributes
such as similarity and associative fluency, which are not intrinsically related to uncertainty. Doubt is a phenomenon
of System 2, a metacognitive appreciation of one’s ability to think incompatible thoughts about the same thing.
Framing Effects
The assumption that preferences are not affected by variations of irrelevant features of options or outcomes has
been called extensionality and invariance. Invariance is violated in demonstrations of framing effects such as the
Asian disease problem.
Respondents characterized by an active System 2 are more likely than others to notice the relationship between
the two versions and to ensure the consistency of the responses to them.
The basic principle of framing is the passive acceptance of the formulation given. This general principle applies
equally as well to puzzles, to the displays of Figure 2, and to the standard framing effects.
Intuition and Accessibility
Intuitive judgments occupy a position between the automatic operations of perception and the deliberate
operations of reasoning.
There is a two-system view, which distinguished intuition from reasoning.
The Two-System View
There is a distinguish the two types of cognitive processes labeled System 1 and System 2.
1. The operations of System 1 are typically fast, automatic, effortless, associative, implicit (not available to
introspection), and often emotionally charged; they are also governed by habit and are therefore difficult
to control or modify.
2. The operations of System 2 are slower, serial, effortful, more likely to be consciously monitored and
deliberately controlled; they are also relatively flexible and potentially rule governed.
The effect of concurrent cognitive tasks provides the most useful indication of whether a given mental process
belongs to System 1 or System 2. Because the overall capacity for mental effort is limited, effortful processes tend
to disrupt each other, whereas effortless processes neither cause nor suffer much interference when combined
with other tasks.
In the model that is presented here, the perceptual system and the intuitive operations of System 1
generate impressions of the attributes of objects of perception and thought.
In contrast, judgments are always intentional and explicit even when they are not overtly expressed. Thus,
System 2 is involved in all judgments, whether they originate in impressions or in deliberate reasoning.
Intuition was associated with poor performance, but intuitive thinking can also be powerful and accurate.
Research has argued that skilled decision makers often do better when they trust their intuitions than when they
engage in detailed analysis.
, The Accessibility Dimension
A core property of many intuitive thoughts is that under appropriate circumstances, they come to mind
spontaneously and effortlessly, like percepts.
The question is: To understand intuition, then, one must understand why some thoughts come to mind more easily
than others, why some ideas arise effortlessly and others demand work. ???
The central concept is: accessibility—the ease (or effort) with which particular mental contents come to mind. The
accessibility of a thought is determined jointly by the characteristics of the cognitive mechanisms that produce it
and by the characteristics of the stimuli and events that evoke it.
The behaviorists similarly viewed the explanation of “habit strength” or “response strength” as the main task of
psychological theory.
The determinants of accessibility subsume the notions of stimulus salience, selective attention, specific training,
associative activation, and priming.
Accessibility is a continuum, not a dichotomy, and some effortful operations demand more effort than others.
The acquisition of skill selectively increases the accessibility of useful responses and of productive ways to organize
information.
Determinants of Accessibility
What becomes accessible in any particular situation is mainly determined, of course , by the actual properties of
the object of judgment.
Physical salience also determines accessibility: If a large green letter and a small blue letter are shown at the same
time, green will come to mind first. However, salience can be overcome by deliberate attention. Motivationally
relevant and emotionally arousing stimuli spontaneously attract attention.
Accessibility also reflects temporary states of priming and associative activation, as well as enduring operating
characteristics of the perceptual and cognitive systems.
Natural assessments, are routinely and automatically registered by the perceptual system or by System1 without
intention or effort. List of natural assessments with no claim to completeness. In addition to physical properties
such as size, distance, and loudness, the list includes more abstract properties such as similarity, causal propensity,
surprisingness, affective valence and mood.
Accessibility itself is a natural assessment—the routine evaluation of cognitive fluency in perception and memory.
Uncertainty is poorly represented in intuition, as well as in perception. Indeed, the concept of judgment heuristics
was invented to accommodate the observation that intuitive judgments of probability are mediated by attributes
such as similarity and associative fluency, which are not intrinsically related to uncertainty. Doubt is a phenomenon
of System 2, a metacognitive appreciation of one’s ability to think incompatible thoughts about the same thing.
Framing Effects
The assumption that preferences are not affected by variations of irrelevant features of options or outcomes has
been called extensionality and invariance. Invariance is violated in demonstrations of framing effects such as the
Asian disease problem.
Respondents characterized by an active System 2 are more likely than others to notice the relationship between
the two versions and to ensure the consistency of the responses to them.
The basic principle of framing is the passive acceptance of the formulation given. This general principle applies
equally as well to puzzles, to the displays of Figure 2, and to the standard framing effects.
