Blog
About

1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Facts and Possibilities: A Model-Based Theory of Sentential Reasoning

      1 , 2 , 3 , 4

      Cognitive Science

      Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 61

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition.

          This article reviews a diverse set of proposals for dual processing in higher cognition within largely disconnected literatures in cognitive and social psychology. All these theories have in common the distinction between cognitive processes that are fast, automatic, and unconscious and those that are slow, deliberative, and conscious. A number of authors have recently suggested that there may be two architecturally (and evolutionarily) distinct cognitive systems underlying these dual-process accounts. However, it emerges that (a) there are multiple kinds of implicit processes described by different theorists and (b) not all of the proposed attributes of the two kinds of processing can be sensibly mapped on to two systems as currently conceived. It is suggested that while some dual-process theories are concerned with parallel competing processes involving explicit and implicit knowledge systems, others are concerned with the influence of preconscious processes that contextualize and shape deliberative reasoning and decision-making.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            The growth of logical thinking: From childhood to adolescence.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Two Is Not Always Better Than One: A Critical Evaluation of Two-System Theories.

              Over the past two decades, there has been an upsurge in theoretical frameworks alluding to the existence of two different processing systems that supposedly operate according to different rules. This article critically examines the scientific advance offered by these theories (in particular advances in the domains of reasoning, decision making, and social cognition) and questions their theoretical coherence as well as the evidence for their existence. We scrutinize the conceptual underpinnings of two-system models and explicate the assumptions underlying these models to see whether they are reasonable. We also evaluate the empirical paradigms used to validate two-system models and ponder about their explanatory strength and predictive power. Given the popularity of these models, we discuss the appeal of two-system theories and suggest potential reasons for their prevalence. We comment on the potential costs associated with these models and allude to the desired nature of potential alternatives. We conclude that two-system models currently provide little scientific advance, and we encourage researchers to adopt more rigorous conceptual definitions and employ more stringent criteria for testing the empirical evidence in support for two-system theories.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cognitive Science
                Cogn Sci
                Wiley
                03640213
                August 2018
                August 2018
                July 02 2018
                : 42
                : 6
                : 1887-1924
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence; US Naval Research Laboratory
                [2 ]School of Psychology and Institute of Neuroscience; Trinity College Dublin; University of Dublin
                [3 ]Department of Psychology; Princeton University
                [4 ]Department of Psychology; New York University
                Article
                10.1111/cogs.12634
                © 2018

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                Comments

                Comment on this article