ReviewThe Behavioral and brain sciences2022
Advancing theorizing about fast-and-slow thinking.
Review in The Behavioral and brain sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learning and Using Different Task Rule Updating Strategies Require Extensive Practice.Cognitive science · 2026Article
- Why moral judgements change across variations of trolley-like problems.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
- Cognitive Reflection Enhances Rationality Without Changing the Underlying Cognitive Processes.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Context-dependent interaction between goal-directed and habitual control under time pressure.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Intuition and deliberation in elite expertise.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026Article
- Perceived busyness shapes assortment size preferences via distinct thinking styles.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Limits of the Ease-of-Retrieval Effect in Real and Fake News Credibility Judgments: Two Preregistered Experiments.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Intuitive and deliberative processes underlying commitment signaling for cooperative assortment.iScience · 2026Article
- Intuitive and deliberate decisions can be accounted for by the same cognitive process model.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Older adults can outperform younger adults in creative problem solving.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Collective self-justification and resistance to integration: behavioral and social mechanisms within the Israeli ultra-orthodox community.Frontiers in sociology · 2026Article
- When Fast Thinking Meets Bad Emotion: The Effect of Intuitive Processing Modes and Negative Moods on Moral Hypocrisy.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Decoding the cascading architecture of creative ideation: an ERP study.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Conflict detection with invalid inferences: All heuristics, no logic.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
- Chronic pain is linked to a resting-state neural archetype that optimizes learning from punishments.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Logical intuitions or matching heuristics? Examining the effect of deduction training on belief-based reasoning judgments.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
- Humans and LLMs rate deliberation as superior to intuition on complex reasoning tasks.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- "Rationality" enhancement through anodal tDCS over the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Intelligence and Moral Development: A Critical Historical Review and Future Directions.Journal of Intelligence · 2025Review
- Increased reliance on heuristic thinking in mild cognitive impairment.Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and cognition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human reasoning is often conceived as an interplay between a more intuitive and deliberate thought process. In the last 50 years, influential fast-and-slow dual-process models that capitalize on this distinction have been used to account for numerous phenomena - from logical reasoning biases, over prosocial behavior, to moral decision making. The present paper clarifies that despite the popularity, critical assumptions are poorly conceived. My critique focuses on two interconnected foundational issues: the exclusivity and switch feature. The exclusivity feature refers to the tendency to conceive intuition and deliberation as generating unique responses such that one type of response is assumed to be beyond the capability of the fast-intuitive processing mode. I review the empirical evidence in key fields and show that there is no solid ground for such exclusivity. The switch feature concerns the mechanism by which a reasoner can decide to shift between more intuitive and deliberate processing. I present an overview of leading switch accounts and show that they are conceptually problematic - precisely because they presuppose exclusivity. I build on these insights to sketch the groundwork for a more viable dual-process architecture and illustrate how it can set a new research agenda to advance the field in the coming years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36052534What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.