Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
2.6
2.5
Journals
Behavioral Sciences
Special Issues
Examining Cognitive Processes of Decision-Making under the Perspective of a...
share announcement

Examining Cognitive Processes of Decision-Making under the Perspective of a Dual-System Approach

A special issue of Behavioral Sciences (ISSN 2076-328X). This special issue belongs to the section "Social Psychology".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 28 February 2025 | Viewed by 2766

Special Issue Editors

Prof. Dr. Guy Hochman

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
School of Psychology, Reichman University, Herzliya 4610101, Israel
Interests: decision-making; behavioral economics; moral behavior; motivation
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals
Prof. Dr. Shahar Ayal

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
School of Psychology, Reichman University, Herzliya 4610101, Israel
Interests: decision-making; behavioral economics; moral behavior; social psychology

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

The dual-system approach considers the existence of two qualitatively different systems: one that is based on intuitive, automatic processing, and another that is based on reflective, deliberate processing. The two systems are assumed to operate concurrently, and automatic and controlled cognitive processes compete for the control of overt behavior. This approach has received much attention from scholars who study human reasoning, social cognition, and judgment and decision-making. At the same time, the dual-system approach has been criticized for its lack of coherence and poor conceptual definitions, which have impeded its potential scientific impact. The goal of the Special Issue is to promote research from different perspectives that challenge or facilitate the dual system approach or utilize it to explore the processes underlying choice behavior and decision-making processes.

We encourage submissions of empirical research from any theoretical perspective that falls broadly into one of the following areas. Submissions in related areas that include valuable discussions in these directions will also be considered.

  • Hierarchy and priority of human motives (e.g., intuitive vs. rational; economic, vs. social).
  • The use of the dual system approach to examine the cognitive processes underlying human decision making.
  • Individual differences and the dual system approach (e.g., intuitive versus rational thinking style).
  • The connection between the dual systems and contextual factors in affecting decision-making quality.
  • Heuristics and biases under the dual system approach.
  • Theoretical advancements in the dual-system approach or critical evaluation of it.
  • Dual system-based practical interventions and remedies aimed at increasing optimal decisions.

Prof. Dr. Guy Hochman
Prof. Dr. Shahar Ayal
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Behavioral Sciences is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2200 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • dual systems
  • cognitive processes
  • heuristics and biases

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Published Papers (3 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review

24 pages, 982 KiB  
Article
Self vs. Other in Affective Forecasting: The Role of Psychological Distance and Decision from Experience
by Rachel Barkan
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14(11), 1036; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14111036 - 4 Nov 2024
Viewed by 661
Abstract
This work tests self–other differences in the impact bias using the perspectives of psychological distance and decision from description vs. experience. Two studies compared the bias participants made for themselves and for others in a sequential gambling task. The task involved two identical [...] Read more.
This work tests self–other differences in the impact bias using the perspectives of psychological distance and decision from description vs. experience. Two studies compared the bias participants made for themselves and for others in a sequential gambling task. The task involved two identical gambles where the first gamble was mandatory and participants made decisions (accept or reject) for the second gamble. Planned decisions were made anticipating a gain or loss in the first gamble, and revised decisions were made following the actual experience of gain or loss. Study 1 compared decisions for self, abstract other, and a close friend. Study 2 replicated the comparison between the self and a close friend and added a measure of empathy. Both studies demonstrated an impact bias indicating that participants tended to overestimate the impact of anticipated outcomes on their tendency towards risk. Specifically, revised decisions indicated risk-aversion shifts after experienced gain and risk-seeking shifts after experienced loss. A reversed pattern emerged for close friends, indicating risky shifts after gain and cautious shifts after loss in Study 1 and for highly empathetic participants in Study 2. Assessing the utility functions that underlie participants’ decisions revealed a qualitative difference. The utility function for the self was consistent with prospect theory (with moderate intensity and diminishing sensitivity), while the utility function for others was more intense with little or no diminishing sensitivity. This research offers new insights regarding the roles of psychological distance and description vs. experience in affective forecasting and impact bias for self vs. other. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Examining Cognitive Processes of Decision-Making under the Perspective of a Dual-System Approach)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

15 pages, 225 KiB  
Article
What Affects the Value of Our Time? The Case of Buying a Present vs. Buying for Ourselves and the Impact of Decision-Making Styles
by Nir Reich and Ofer H. Azar
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14(9), 786; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090786 - 7 Sep 2024
Viewed by 663
Abstract
We study how the buying purpose affects the trade-off between time and money. We consider the case of buying something for ourselves versus buying a gift and the decision whether to spend time traveling to a cheaper store to save money. We hypothesized [...] Read more.
We study how the buying purpose affects the trade-off between time and money. We consider the case of buying something for ourselves versus buying a gift and the decision whether to spend time traveling to a cheaper store to save money. We hypothesized that when purchasing a gift, people make less effort to save money, and therefore will be less willing to spend time traveling to a cheaper store when they buy a gift. In experiments with several scenarios, we fail to find support for this hypothesis. We also explore the impact of telling subjects that the purchase is made abroad. This is hypothesized to increase the valuation of the buyer’s time. We also hypothesize that the interaction of being abroad and buying a gift will be negative. The data support both hypotheses. Subjects answered 15 questions about their decision-making style (rational, intuitive, and spontaneous). Subjects with more rational decision-making exhibit lower time value, which is likely to be closer to the real one. Subjects with more rational decision-making also show more strongly that time abroad is more valuable. These results suggest that questions about decision-making style are correlated with decision-making in scenarios of realistic purchase decisions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Examining Cognitive Processes of Decision-Making under the Perspective of a Dual-System Approach)

Review

Jump to: Research

18 pages, 316 KiB  
Review
Beyond the Surface: A New Perspective on Dual-System Theories in Decision-Making
by Guy Hochman
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14(11), 1028; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14111028 - 1 Nov 2024
Viewed by 811
Abstract
The current paper provides a critical evaluation of the dual-system approach in cognitive psychology. This evaluation challenges traditional classifications that associate intuitive processes solely with noncompensatory models and deliberate processes with compensatory ones. Instead, it suggests a more nuanced framework where intuitive and [...] Read more.
The current paper provides a critical evaluation of the dual-system approach in cognitive psychology. This evaluation challenges traditional classifications that associate intuitive processes solely with noncompensatory models and deliberate processes with compensatory ones. Instead, it suggests a more nuanced framework where intuitive and deliberate characteristics coexist within both compensatory and noncompensatory processes. This refined understanding of dual-process models has significant implications for improving theoretical models of decision-making, providing a more comprehensive account of the cognitive mechanisms underlying human judgment and choice. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Examining Cognitive Processes of Decision-Making under the Perspective of a Dual-System Approach)
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-3
Back to TopTop