Two Key Studies on Thinking & Decision-Making: Alter et al. (2007) & Lerner & Ma-Kellams (2016) (SL IB Psychology)

Aim: To investigate the Dual Process Model via the effect of disfluency (operationalised using a difficult-to-read font) on S1 and S2 thinking

Participants: 40 undergraduate students from Princeton University in the USA, obtained via self-selecting (volunteer) sampling

Procedure: This was an independent measures design in which participants were given identical Cognitive Reflection Tests (CRT) to answer. The CRT comprised questions that were not inherently difficult, but which required some cognitive energy to solve e.g. A bat and a ball together cost $1.10. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does each cost separately? The answer is that the bat costs $1.05 and the ball costs 5 cents but most people are likely to say that the bat costs $1 and the ball costs 10 cents as this is the quickest, easiest answer (even though it is incorrect) requiring no cognitive effort. To come up with the correct answer is not difficult but it requires mental effort and time to properly think it through

The participants were randomly allocated to one of two conditions:

• The CRT questions presented in a fluent (easy-to-read) font (black, 12-point)
• The CRT questions presented in a disfluent (difficult-to-read) font (grey, italic, 10-point)

It was hypothesised that the disfluent font would require the participants to concentrate more on what was written which would then trigger S2 thinking which requires deeper processing than S1. The dependent variable was measured as the number of correct responses per condition

Results: Participants in the disfluent condition answered more CRT questions correctly than participants in the fluent condition.

Conclusion: The hypothesis was supported thus it appears that having to concentrate on a disfluent font may trigger S2 thinking as it requires more cognitive energy and effort than a fluent font requires

Evaluation of Alter et al. (2007)

Strengths

• Using CRT questions was a suitable means by which to test the DPM, as to answer them correctly requires S2 thinking over S1 thinking, which is what the study aimed to investigate, increasing internal validity
• The DV was measured quantitatively which means that the results are easy to compare and analyse statistically

Limitations

• The sample comprised students from an elite, prestigious university in the USA, making the results difficult to generalise to other populations
• It is possible that the participants were affected by demand characteristics e.g. they may have tried to answer the questions with more (or less) effort than they would normally expend in real life

Key terms:

• Dual Process Model
• Cognitive Reflection Test
• Disfluency

Aim: To investigate empathy as a product of either S1 or S2 thinking as part of the DPM.

Participants: A self-selecting sample that consisted of participants from several executive-education programmes at Harvard University (designed for senior-level professionals) in Cambridge, USA. The sample consisted of 72 participants (47 male, 32 female; mean age = 47; 72% European American, 14% African American, 6% Asian, 4% Latin American, and 4% other).  

Procedure: The participants were randomly paired and assigned to the role of either the interviewer or interviewee. Interviewers were instructed to ask their interviewee a scripted set of three typical interview questions (e.g. “What is your greatest strength and weakness?”). Pairs were given three minutes to complete the mock interview. Next, participants completed two separate Positive and Negative Emotion Schedules, one assessing their own emotions during the interview and one assessing what they perceived their partner’s emotions to be during the interview.

Participants rated how they felt, as well as how they thought their partners felt, on 20 different mood items (e.g. interested, distressed, proud, nervous) on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). In addition, participants completed three CRT questions.

Results: The participants who scored highest on the CRT (identified as S2 thinkers) were also more accurate in terms of their empathy i.e. how they rated and responded to the mood of their partner in the mock interview.

Conclusion: S2 thinkers may be more empathic than S1 thinkers. 

Evaluation of Lerner & Ma-Kellams (2016)

Strengths

• This is an interesting way to assess the DPM with its use of research triangulation and its emphasis on behavioural variables such as mood: to some extent this increases the ecological validity of the findings
• The participants were of a similar intellectual level which means that participant variables should not have impacted the study

Limitations

• Empathy is a complex, multi-layered trait which cannot easily be quantified using a rating scale 
• It is possible that some of the participants may have disliked their randomly allocated partner which would naturally lower their empathy towards them

Key terms:

• Empathy
• Rating scale
• Research triangulation