Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T16:54:26.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hoist by its own petard: The ironic and fatal flaws of dual-process theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2023

David E. Melnikoff Open the ORCID record for David E. Melnikoff [Opens in a new window]  and
John A. Bargh Open the ORCID record for John A. Bargh [Opens in a new window]
David E. Melnikoff
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA davidemelnikoff@gmail.com; https://www.davidmelnikoff.com/
John A. Bargh
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA john.bargh@yale.edu; https://acmelab.yale.edu/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

By stipulating the existence of a system 1 and a system 2, dual-process theories raise questions about how these systems function. De Neys identifies several such questions for which no plausible answers have ever been offered. What makes the nature of systems 1 and 2 so difficult to ascertain? The answer is simple: The systems do not exist.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e132
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.)

References

Abrahamse, E., Braem, S., Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2016). Grounding cognitive control in associative learning. Psychological Bulletin, 142(7), 693–728.10.1037/bul0000047CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Intention, awareness, efficiency, and control as separate issues. In Wyer, R. S. Jr., & Srull, T. K (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 1–40). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gilbert, D. T., & Hixon, J. G. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 509–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keren, G., & Schul, Y. (2009). Two is not always better than one: A critical evaluation of two-system theories. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 593–550.10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01164.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, S. Y., Kim, M. S., & Chun, M. M. (2005). Concurrent working memory load can reduce distraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(45), 16524–16529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruglanski, A. W., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles. Psychological Review, 118, 97–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lieder, F., Shenhav, A., Musslick, S., & Griffiths, T. L. (2018). Rational metareasoning and the plasticity of cognitive control. PLoS Computational Biology, 14(4), e1006043.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melnikoff, D. E., & Bailey, A. H. (2018). Preferences for moral vs. immoral traits in others are conditional. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(4), E592–E600.10.1073/pnas.1714945115CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melnikoff, D. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2018). The mythical number two. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 280–293.10.1016/j.tics.2018.02.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moors, A., & De Houwer, J. (2006). Automaticity: A theoretical and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 297–326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Restle, F. (1962). The selection of strategies in cue learning. Psychological Review, 69(4), 329–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shenhav, A., Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2013). The expected value of control: An integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron, 79(2), 217–240.10.1016/j.neuron.2013.07.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed