🧠 Thinking and Decision making

📌Definition Table

Term Definition
System 1 ThinkingAutomatic, quick, effortless, based on intuition, emotions, and heuristics.

System 2 Thinking		Deliberate, slow, logical, analytical, and requires effort.
HeuristicsCognitive shortcuts or rules of thumb that simplify decision-making but can lead to biases.
ThinkingThe process of using knowledge and information to make plans, solve problems, and draw conclusions.
Decision-makingThe process of selecting a course of action among several alternatives.
Loss AversionThe tendency to prefer avoiding losses over acquiring equivalent gains.
Dual Process ModelThe theory that there are two systems of thinking: System 1 (fast, intuitive) and System 2 (slow, rational).

📌Core Concepts

Thinking and decision-making involve cognitive processes such as reasoning, judgment, and problem-solving.
According to the Dual Process Model, humans use two systems of thought:

  • System 1: Intuitive, emotional, fast, and automatic.
  • System 2: Logical, analytical, deliberate, and controlled.

While System 1 helps make quick decisions in daily life, it often leads to cognitive biases, whereas System 2 provides accuracy but requires mental effort.

📌Key Studies
📄 Kahneman & Tversky (1974) – Anchoring Bias

Aim: To investigate the effect of anchoring on numerical estimation.
Procedure:

  • Participants spun a random number wheel (10 or 65).
  • Then asked if the percentage of African nations in the UN was higher or lower than the number they spun, and to estimate the actual percentage.
    Findings:
  • Group with “10” estimated 25%; group with “65” estimated 45%.
    Conclusion:
  • Initial values (anchors) strongly influenced estimates.
    ✅ Supports the Dual Process Model: System 1 uses heuristics (anchoring), while System 2 adjusts insufficiently.

Evaluation:

⚠️ May not represent complex real-life decisions.

✅ Controlled, replicable, supports cognitive bias theory.

⚠️ Artificial task (low ecological validity).

📄 Tversky & Kahneman (1981) – Framing Effect

Aim: To test how phrasing affects decision-making.
Procedure:

  • Participants were told about a hypothetical disease outbreak.
  • “Program A” would save 200 lives; “Program B” had a ⅓ chance of saving all, ⅔ chance of saving none.
  • Framed as “lives saved” vs. “lives lost.”
    Findings:
  • When framed in terms of gains, most chose Program A (risk-averse).
  • When framed in terms of losses, most chose Program B (risk-seeking).
    Conclusion:
  • Decisions depend on how information is presented, not actual outcomes.
    ✅ Supports System 1 thinking — quick, emotional responses.

Evaluation:

✅ Real-world applications in marketing and health communication.

✅ Highly replicable, foundational study on bias.

⚠️ Hypothetical scenario; lacks real-life consequence.

📄 Englich & Mussweiler (2001) – Judicial Decision Making (Anchoring Bias)

Aim: To determine whether legal professionals’ judgments are influenced by anchoring.
Procedure:

  • 19 young trial judges read a legal case summary and were given a prosecutor’s sentencing demand (low: 34 months, high: 12 months).
    Findings:
  • Sentences followed the anchor — higher anchor → longer sentence.
    Conclusion:
  • Even trained professionals are susceptible to cognitive bias.
    ✅ Reinforces the pervasiveness of System 1 bias in reasoning.

Evaluation:

  • ✅ Realistic application, high ecological validity.
  • ⚠️ Small sample (German judges), limited generalizability.
  • ✅ Strong support for System 1 influence in expert decision-making.

🔍Tok link


The Dual Process Model raises key epistemological questions:

Can intuition (System 1) be considered a valid source of knowledge in ethics or art?

Are “rational” decisions always better than intuitive ones?

How do emotion and reason interact in the pursuit of knowledge?

 🌐 Real-World Connection

  • Used to understand consumer behavior, financial decisions, and marketing biases.
  • Explains judicial errors, medical misdiagnoses, and public policy framing.
  • Crucial for risk communication in health and environmental issues — the way information is framed affects public response.

❤️ CAS Link

  • Create campaigns that raise awareness about cognitive biases (anchoring, framing, stereotyping).
  • Conduct decision-making workshops to improve rational thinking in community programs.
  • Link to ethical CAS reflection: “How do my biases affect decision-making when helping others?”

🧠  IA Guidance

  • Excellent basis for an IA using anchoring or framing as an independent variable.
  • Example: Ask participants to estimate values (e.g., cost of items, probabilities) after different anchors.
  • Simple design, easily replicable, with quantitative analysis potential.

🧠 Examiner Tips

  • Always name and describe a study (Tversky & Kahneman or Englich & Mussweiler).
  • Use key terms like heuristics, bias, System 1/2, framing, and anchoring.
  • In ERQs, evaluate whether the Dual Process Model explains all decision-making or if it’s too simplistic.
  • Connect to real-life applications for top band answers (marketing, justice, health, etc.).