An Investigation of Individual Differences in Expected Utility Violations From the Dual Process Perspective

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kanchan Mukherjee
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Expected Utility ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Process Perspective ◽  
Expected Utility Violations

Individual differences in epistemic style: A dual-process perspective

2007 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin E. Eigenberger ◽  
Christine Critchley ◽  
Karen A. Sealander
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Epistemic Style ◽  
Process Perspective

Advances in Research on the Model of Intuitive Morality and Exemplars (MIME)

2021 ◽  
pp. 230-249
Author(s):  
Allison Eden ◽  
Ron Tamborini ◽  
Melinda Aley ◽  
Henry Goble
Keyword(s):  
Moral Judgment ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Selective Exposure ◽  
Moral Judgments ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Social Perceptions ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Moral Intuitions ◽  
Process Perspective

This chapter describes the model of intuitive morality and exemplars (MIME), which examines connections between moral judgment and exposure to narrative media. The MIME explicates distinct, a priori–defined domains of moral intuitions that cut across cultural boundaries and identifies underlying processes that shape related social perceptions to describe how media and moral judgment are intertwined. The model’s dual-process perspective suggests some moral judgments are determined by quick gut reflexes and others by reflective deliberation. The MIME’s multistage process contains short-term and long-term components. The short-term component describes how exemplars that prime moral intuitions affect the appraisal of media content, which then prompts selective exposure to media that upholds primed intuitions. The long-term component describes how aggregate patterns of exposure to media that upholds primed intuitions encourages further (mass) production of content featuring those intuitions. This reciprocal process describes how media systems and audiences influence the salience of one another’s moral intuitions.

scholarly journals Individual differences in anchoring effect: Evidence for the role of insufficient adjustment

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Predrag Teovanović
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Process ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Systematic Effect ◽  
Human Reasoning ◽  
Anchoring Effect ◽  
Cognitive Reflection ◽  
Process Theories ◽  
Dual Process Theories

Although the anchoring effect is one of the most reliable results of experimental psychology, researchers have only recently begun to examine the role of individual differences in susceptibility to this cognitive bias. Yet, first correlational studies yielded inconsistent results, failing to identify any predictors that have a systematic effect on anchored decisions. The present research seeks to remedy methodological shortcomings of foregoing research by employing modified within-subject anchoring procedure. Results confirmed the robustness of phenomenon in extended paradigm and replicated previous findings on anchor’s direction and distance as significant experimental factors of the anchoring effect size. Obtained measures of individual differences in susceptibility to anchoring were fairly reliable but shared only small portion of variability with intelligence, cognitive reflection, and basic personality traits. However, in a group of more reflective subjects, substantial negative correlation between intelligence and anchoring was detected. This finding indicates that, at least for some subjects, effortful cognitive process of adjustment plays role in the emergence of the anchoring effect, which is in line with expectations of dual-process theories of human reasoning.

Intuition and Reasoning: A Dual-Process Perspective

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 313-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan St B T Evans
Keyword(s):  
Dual Process ◽  
Process Perspective
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document