Application of the dual-process theory of decision making to threat detection during airport security screening

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia C. Brennan ◽  
Poornima Madhavan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Dual Process Theory ◽  
Process Theory ◽  
Airport Security ◽  
Threat Detection ◽  
Security Screening

scholarly journals The complex phenomenon of dysrational antibiotics prescribing decisions in German primary healthcare: a qualitative interview study using dual process theory

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Regina Poss-Doering ◽  
Martina Kamradt ◽  
Anna Stuermlinger ◽  
Katharina Glassen ◽  
Petra Kaufmann-Kolle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Care Patient ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Dual Process Theory ◽  
Process Theory ◽  
Qualitative Interview Study ◽  
Prescription Rates

Abstract Background Antibiotic prescription rates in primary care in Germany are moderate, but still considered too high. The ARena study (Sustainable reduction of antibiotic-induced antimicrobial resistance) was initiated to foster awareness and understanding of the growing challenge and promotes rational antibiotics use for acute, non-complicated and self-limiting infections. Methods The present study was performed as part of the process evaluation of the ARena study. Interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of physicians participating in the ARena study to identify factors relevant to primary care physicians’ decision-making when prescribing antibiotics for acute non-complicated infections. Generated data were audio-recorded. Pseudonymized verbatim transcripts were coded using a pre-defined framework. The Dual Process Theory was applied to provide understanding of individual health professional factors that induce dysrational prescribing decisions. Results Based on medical as well as non-medical considerations, physicians developed habits in decision making on antibiotics prescribing. They acknowledged inadequate antibiotics prescribing for acute, non-complicated infections in situations involving uncertainty regarding diagnosis, prognosis, continuity of care, patient expectations and when not knowing the patient. Educative efforts empowered physicians to override habitual prescribing. A theory-driven model provides transparency as to how dysrational prescribing decisions occur and suggests remedy by providing new experiences and new recognizable patterns through educative efforts. Conclusions Educational interventions may only change prescribing behaviours if they result in active rational rather than routine-based decision-making on antibiotics prescribing. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN58150046.

scholarly journals Dual Process Theories in Behavioral Economics and Neuroeconomics: a Critical Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
James D. Grayot
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Behavioral Economics ◽  
Critical Review ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Decision Models ◽  
Dual Process Theory ◽  
Process Theory ◽  
Standard View ◽  
Realistic Description ◽  
Dual Process Theories

Abstract Despite their popularity, dual process accounts of human reasoning and decision-making have come under intense scrutiny in recent years. Cognitive scientists and philosophers alike have come to question the theoretical foundations of the ‘standard view’ of dual process theory and have challenged the validity and relevance of evidence in support of it. Moreover, attempts to modify and refine dual process theory in light of these challenges have generated additional concerns about its applicability and refutability as a scientific theory. With these concerns in mind, this paper provides a critical review of dual process theory in economics, focusing on its role as a psychological framework for decision modeling in behavioral economics and neuroeconomics. I argue that the influx of criticisms against dual process theory challenge the descriptive accuracy of dualistic decision models in economics. In fact, the case can be made that the popularity of dual process theory in economics has less to do with the empirical success of dualistic decision models, and more to do with the convenience that the dual process narrative provides economists looking to explain-away decision anomalies. This leaves behavioral economists and neuroeconomists with something of a dilemma: either they stick to their purported ambitions to give a realistic description of human decision-making and give up the narrative, or they revise and restate their scientific ambitions.

Quality or Quantity? The Power of Expert Reviews in the Presence of Conflicting Aggregated Ratings

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-129
Author(s):  
Anna Naujoks
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Information Sources ◽  
Online Reviews ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Dual Process Theory ◽  
Process Theory ◽  
Online Review ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Simultaneous Presence ◽  
Multiple Cues

Many consumers consult online reviews to evaluate services. Online review platforms present them with multiple cues by which to assess whether a review message is useful in their decision-making process. However, consumers are often faced with conflicting opinions from different information sources. By using the theoretical framework of dual-process theory and signaling theory, this paper examines the effect of majority and minority influences.It further investigates how expert reviewers are perceived, and the role played by the total number of available reviews. A 2 x 2 x 2 (review valence x expertise of conflicting review x number of reviews) scenario-based experiment is conducted. The results demonstrate that expert sources weaken the prominent influence of the majority, especially when majority size is small. The research contributes to existing literature by explaining how the simultaneous presence of majority and minority influences affects consumers’ decision-making process. Moreover, it examines the power of online expert reviewers.

scholarly journals Evaluating team decision-making as an emergent phenomenon

2018 ◽  
Vol 94 (1110) ◽  
pp. 216-219
Author(s):  
John Kinnear ◽  
Nick Wilson ◽  
Anthony O’Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Dual Process Theory ◽  
Process Theory ◽  
Team Cognition ◽  
Random Pairing ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Team Decision ◽  
Improved Performance

BackgroundThe complexity of modern clinical practice has highlighted the fallibility of individual clinicians’ decision-making, with effective teamwork emerging as a key to patient safety. Dual process theory is widely accepted as a framework for individual decision-making, with type 1 processes responsible for fast, intuitive and automatic decisions and type 2 processes for slow, analytical decisions. However, dual process theory does not explain cognition at the group level, when individuals act in teams. Team cognition resulting from dynamic interaction of individuals is said to be more resilient to decision-making error and greater than simply aggregated cognition.MethodsClinicians were paired as teams and asked to solve a cognitive puzzle constructed as a drug calculation. The frequency at which the teams made incorrect decisions was compared with that of individual clinicians answering the same question.ResultsWhen clinicians acted in pairs, 63% answered the cognitive puzzle correctly, compared with 33% of clinicians as individuals, showing a statistically significant difference in performance (χ2(1, n=116)=24.329, P<0.001). Based on the predicted performance of teams made up of the random pairing of individuals who had the same propensity to answer as previously, there was no statistical difference in the actual and predicted teams’ performance.ConclusionsTeams are less prone to making errors of decision-making than individuals. However, the improved performance is likely to be owing to the effect of aggregated cognition rather than any improved decision-making as a result of the interaction. There is no evidence of team cognition as an emergent and distinct entity.

scholarly journals Using quantitative trait in adults with ADHD to test predictions of dual-process theory

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emil Persson ◽  
Markus Heilig ◽  
Gustav Tinghög ◽  
Andrea J. Capusan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Taking ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Dual Process Theory ◽  
Process Theory ◽  
Economic Decision Making ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Reflective Processing

AbstractDual-process theory is a widely utilized modelling tool in the behavioral sciences. It conceptualizes decision-making as an interaction between two types of cognitive processes, some of them fast and intuitive, others slow and reflective. We make a novel contribution to this literature by exploring differences between adults with clinically diagnosed ADHD and healthy controls for a wide range of behaviors. Given the clinical picture and nature of ADHD symptoms, we had a strong a priori reason to expect differences in intuitive vs reflective processing; and thus an unusually strong case for testing the predictions of dual-process theory. We found mixed results, with overall weaker effects than expected, except for risk taking, where individuals with ADHD showed increased domain sensitivity for gains vs losses. Some of our predictions were supported by the data but other patterns are more difficult to reconcile with theory. On balance, our results provide only limited empirical support for using dual-process theory to understand basic social and economic decision-making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document