Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-12T15:09:07.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deliberation is (probably) triggered and sustained by multiple mechanisms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2023

Gordon Pennycook Open the ORCID record for Gordon Pennycook [Opens in a new window]
Gordon Pennycook*
Affiliation:
Hill/Levene Schools of Business, University of Regina, Regina, SK, Canada Department of Psychology, University of Regina, Regina, SK, Canada grpennycook@gmail.com gordonpennycook.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

De Neys proposes that deliberation is triggered and sustained by uncertainty. I argue that there are cases where deliberation occurs with low uncertainty – such as when problems are excessively complicated and the reasoner decides against engaging in deliberation – and that there are likely multiple factors that lead to (or undermine) deliberation. Nonetheless, De Neys is correct to surface these issues.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e137
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

Chong, T. T.-J., Bonnelle, V., & Husain, M. (2016). Chapter 4 – Quantifying motivation with effort-based decision-making paradigms in health and disease. In Studer, B. & Knecht, S. (Eds.), Progress in brain research (Vol. 229, pp. 71–100). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2016.05.002Google Scholar
De Neys, W. (2021). On dual and single process models of thinking. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16, 1412–1427.10.1177/1745691620964172CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pennycook, G. (2017). A perspective on the theoretical foundation of dual-process models. In De Neys, W. (Ed.), Dual process theory 2.0 (pp. 5–39). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315204550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, G. (2023). A framework for understanding reasoning errors: From fake news to climate change and beyond. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 131–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2022.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2020). On the belief that beliefs should change according to evidence: Implications for conspiratorial, moral, paranormal, political, religious, and science beliefs. Judgment and Decision Making, 15, 476–498. https://doi.org/10.31234/OSF.IO/A7K96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2015). What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement. Cognitive Psychology, 80, 34–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.05.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petty, R. E., Brinol, P., Loersch, C., & McCaslin, M. J. (2009). The need for cognition. In M. R. L. & Hoyle, R. H. (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 318–329). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Shenhav, A., Botvinick, M., & Cohen, J. (2013). The expected value of control: An integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron, 79(2), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.07.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shenhav, A., Musslick, S., Lieder, F., Kool, W., Griffiths, T. L., Cohen, J. D., & Botvinick, M. M. (2017). Toward a rational and mechanistic account of mental effort. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 40(1), 99–124. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-072116-031526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shenhav, A., Prater Fahey, M., & Grahek, I. (2021). Decomposing the motivation to exert mental effort. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30(4), 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211009510CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, V. A. (2013). Why it matters: The implications of autonomous processes for dual process theories – Commentary on Evans & Stanovich (2013). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 253–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613483476CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed