Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-nqrmd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T22:10:56.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unifying theories of reasoning and decision making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2023

Brett K. Hayes ,
Rachel G. Stephens  and
John C. Dunn Open the ORCID record for John C. Dunn [Opens in a new window]
Brett K. Hayes
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia b.hayes@unsw.edu.au https://www.unsw.edu.au/staff/brett-hayes
Rachel G. Stephens
Affiliation:
University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia rachel.stephens@adelaide.edu.au
John C. Dunn
Affiliation:
University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia john.dunn@uwa.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

De Neys offers a welcome departure from the dual-process accounts that have dominated theorizing about reasoning. However, we see little justification for retaining the distinction between intuition and deliberation. Instead, reasoning can be treated as a case of multiple-cue decision making. Reasoning phenomena can then be explained by decision-making models that supply the processing details missing from De Neys's framework.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e126
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100(3), 432–459. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushman, F., Young, L., & Hauser, M. (2006). The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment: Testing three principles of harm. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1082–1089. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01834.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dube, C., Rotello, C. M., & Heit, E. (2010). Assessing the belief bias effect with ROCs: It's a response bias effect. Psychological Review, 117(3), 831–863. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0019634CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Curtis-Holmes, J. (2005). Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 11, 382–389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13546780542000005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, G. E., Hayes, B. K., & Heit, E. (2016). A dynamic model of reasoning and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 155–180. doi: 10.1037/xge0000113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, B. K., Stephens, R. G., Lee, M. D., Dunn, J. C., Kaluve, A., Choi-Christou, J., & Cruz, N. (2022). Always look on the bright side of logic? Testing explanations of intuitive sensitivity to logic in perceptual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 48(11), 1598–1617. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001105Google ScholarPubMed
Hayes, B. K., Stephens, R. G., Ngo, J., & Dunn, J. C. (2018). The dimensionality of reasoning: Evidence for a single process account of inductive and deductive inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 44, (9), 1333–1351. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000527Google Scholar
Krajbich, I., Bartling, B., Hare, T., & Fehr, E. (2015). Rethinking fast and slow based on a critique of reaction-time reverse inference. Nature Communications, 6(1), 1–9. doi: 10.1038/ncomms8455CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Logan, G. D., & Klapp, S. T. (1991). Automatizing alphabet arithmetic: I. Is extended practice necessary to produce automaticity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(2), 179–195. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0278-7393.17.2.179Google Scholar
Palada, H., Neal, A., Vuckovic, A., Martin, R., Samuels, K., & Heathcote, A. (2016). Evidence accumulation in a complex task: Making choices about concurrent multi-attribute stimuli under time pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22(1), 1–23. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/xap0000074Google Scholar
Ratcliff, R., Smith, P. L., Brown, S. D., & McKoon, G. (2016). Diffusion decision model: Current issues and history. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(4), 260–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.01.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed