Construct · 4 names · 6 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · many two-process theories under one banner Nearest construct by meaningreasoningcompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to dual process is reasoning.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
In the psychology of reasoning, a dual-process account splits thinking into two kinds. Type 1 processing is fast, automatic, and effortless, and it delivers an answer with no feeling of work; Type 2 processing is slow, deliberate, and demanding, and it can check or override the first answer. Evans and Stanovich argue that the defining contrast is not speed itself but whether the process leans on working memory and supports hypothetical, rule-based thought. Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow made the same idea famous under the labels System 1 and System 2, which he was careful to call a useful story rather than parts of the brain. This is the origin cluster the rest of the map is measured against: fast versus slow, intuitive versus reflective, applied to how people answer logic and probability problems.[1][2]
Social psychology reached a similar split for attitude change, under its own names. Petty and Cacioppo's elaboration likelihood model contrasts a central route, in which a person weighs the quality of the arguments, with a peripheral route, in which attitudes shift on simple cues such as the source's expertise or the sheer number of arguments. Chaiken's heuristic-systematic model draws almost the same line: systematic processing scrutinizes the message, while heuristic processing leans on rules of thumb like experts can be trusted. In both models the effortful route runs when the person is motivated and able to think, and the shortcut route runs otherwise. The fast-versus-slow contrast matches the one in reasoning, but the object is a persuasive message and the outcome is a changed attitude, so the theory, the tasks, and the measures are their own. The full genealogy of the effortful route has its own page at elaboration.[3][4]
Memory research carries its own dual-process theory, and it is about something else entirely. When people recognize that they have met an item before, Yonelinas argues, the judgment can rest on two separable processes: recollection, the slower retrieval of specific details about the earlier encounter, and familiarity, a fast global sense that the item was seen before with no accompanying detail. The two can be teased apart by asking people whether they remember an item or merely know it is old, and by the shape of the recognition curve. This split is again fast versus slow, and again automatic versus controlled, so it wears the same dual-process banner. But it is a theory of how a single recognition decision is reached, not a theory of reasoning or persuasion, and its two processes have been tied to different brain regions rather than to any general System 1 and System 2.[5]
A recurring criticism asks whether all of this names one real division or just a habit of speech. Keren and Schul examined the two-system models across reasoning, decision making, and social cognition and questioned whether the many properties heaped onto each side, fast, automatic, unconscious, and associative on one side against slow, controlled, conscious, and rule-based on the other, actually travel together as the theories assume. Their worry is that a study can call a process System 1 because it is fast and then attribute to it every other System 1 property for free. Evans and Stanovich, themselves defenders of the approach, concede part of the point: they drop the numbered systems for the more modest labels Type 1 and Type 2, and warn against reading the two as literal, unified minds. The critique is why this word is a jangle rather than one settled theory: the label is shared, but what it bundles is not agreed even within a single field.[6][1]
Next
See how dual process sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct