Comparing fast thinking and slow thinking: The relative benefits of interventions, individual differences, and inferential rules

Published on Jan 1, 2020in Judgment and Decision Making
M. Asher Lawson1
Estimated H-index: 1
,
Richard P. Larrick37
Estimated H-index: 37
,
Jack B. Soll17
Estimated H-index: 17
Source
Abstract
Research on judgment and decision making has suggested that the System 2 process of slow thinking can help people to improve their decision making by reducing well-established statistical decision biases (including base rate neglect, probability matching, and the conjunction fallacy). In a large pre-registered study with 1,706 participants and 23,292 unique observations, we compare the effects of individual differences and behavioral interventions to test the relative benefits of slow thinking on performance in canonical judgment and decision-making problems, compared to a control condition, a fast thinking condition, an incentive condition, and a condition that combines fast and slow thinking. We also draw on the rule-based reasoning literature to examine the benefits of having access to a simple form of the rule needed to solve a specific focal problem. Overall, we find equivocal evidence of a small benefit from slow thinking, evidence for a small benefit to accuracy incentives, and clear evidence of a larger cost from fast thinking. The difference in performance between fast-thinking and slow-thinking interventions is comparable to a one-scale point difference on the 4-point Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT). Inferential rules contribute unique explanatory power and interact with individual differences to support the idea that System 2 benefits from a combination of slower processes and knowledge appropriate to the problem.
References0
Newest
Cited By2
Newest
#1Matthieu Raoelison (University of Paris)H-Index: 2
#1Matthieu T.S. Raoelison (University of Paris)H-Index: 4
Last. Wim De Neys (University of Paris)H-Index: 37
view all 3 authors...
Influential studies on human thinking with the popular two-response paradigm typically ask participants to continuously alternate between intuitive ("fast") and deliberate ("slow") responding. One concern is that repeated deliberation in these studies will artificially boost the intuitive, "fast" reasoning performance. A recent alternative two-block paradigm therefore advised to present all fast trials in one block before the slow trials were presented. Here, we tested directly whether allowing ...
1 CitationsSource
#2A. Valenzuela-Valenzuela (Universidad de Sonora)
Last. Edgar Omar Rueda-Puente (Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture)H-Index: 13
view all 6 authors...
Shrimp aquaculture production presents associated natural risks; onslaught of epizootics, low international prices, and strong international competition. These are relevant causes that have impacted on the decrease in the profitability of shrimp producing units. This analysis addresses another aspect that eventually affects your performance. Such are the ways in which shrimp producers, their team of managers and technicians, make decisions, and how they face the risks inherent in this activity. ...
Source