No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A view from mindreading on fast-and-slow thinking
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2023
Abstract
De Neys's incisive critique of empirical and theoretical research on the exclusivity feature underscores the depth of the challenge of explaining the interplay of fast and slow processes. We argue that a closer look at research on mindreading reveals abundant evidence for the exclusivity feature – as well as methodological and theoretical perspectives that could inform research on fast and slow thinking.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Butterfill, S. A., & Apperly, I. A. (2013). How to construct a minimal theory of mind. Mind and Language, 28(5), 606–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195367638.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, W., & Michael, J. (2016). From two systems to a multi-systems architecture for mindreading. New Ideas in Psychology, 40(A), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2015.01.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, W. A., & Perner, J. (1994). Implicit understanding of belief. Cognitive Development, 9(4), 377–395. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/0885-2014(94)90012-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, K., & Low, J. (2017). Reaction time profiles of adults’ action prediction reveal two mindreading systems. Cognition, 160, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.12.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, K., & Low, J. (2019). Level 2 perspective-taking distinguishes automatic and non-automatic belief-tracking. Cognition, 193, 104017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fizke, E., Butterfill, S. A., van de Loo, L., Reindl, E., & Rakoczy, H. (2017). Are there signature limits in early theory of mind? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 162, 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.05.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grainger, S. A., Henry, J. D., Naughtin, C. K., Comino, M. S., & Dux, P. E. (2018). Implicit false belief tracking is preserved in late adulthood. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(9), 1980–1987. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021817734690CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Low, J., & Watts, J. (2013). Attributing false beliefs about object identity reveals a signature blind spot in humans’ efficient mind-reading system. Psychological Science, 24(3), 305–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612451469CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meristo, M., Morgan, G., Geraci, A., Lozzi, L., Hjelmquist, E., Surian, L., & Siegal, M. (2012). Belief attribution in deaf and hearing infants. Developmental Science, 15(5), 633–640. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01155.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruffman, T., Garnham, W., Import, A., & Connolly, D. (2001). Does eye gaze indicate knowledge of false belief: Charting transitions in knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 80(3), 201–224. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.2001.2633CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, J. R. (2014). Signature limits in mindreading systems. Cognitive Science, 38(7), 1432–1455. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12117CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van der Wel, R. P., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2014). Do people automatically track others’ beliefs? Evidence from a continuous measure. Cognition, 130(1), 128–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.10.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woo, B., & Spelke, E. (2021). Limits to early mental state reasoning: Fourteen-to 15-month-old infants appreciate whether others can see objects, but not others’ experiences of objects. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 43, 1914–1920. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/42n9x4n3Google Scholar
Zani, G., Butterfill, S. A., & Low, J. (2020). Mindreading in the balance: Adults’ mediolateral leaning and anticipatory looking foretell others’ action preparation in a false-belief interactive task. Royal Society Open Science, 7(1), 191167. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Target article
Advancing theorizing about fast-and-slow thinking
Related commentaries (34)
A good architecture for fast and slow thinking, but exclusivity is exclusively in the past
A tale of two histories: Dual-system architectures in modular perspective
A view from mindreading on fast-and-slow thinking
Advancing theorizing about fast-and-slow thinking: The interplay between fast and slow processing
Automatic threat processing shows evidence of exclusivity
Categorizing judgments as likely to be selected by intuition or deliberation
Conflict paradigms cannot reveal competence
Correction, uncertainty, and anchoring effects
Could Bayesian cognitive science undermine dual-process theories of reasoning?
Deliberation is (probably) triggered and sustained by multiple mechanisms
Deliberative control is more than just reactive: Insights from sequential sampling models
Dual-process moral judgment beyond fast and slow
Dual-process theory is Barbapapa
Explaining normative–deliberative gaps is essential to dual-process theorizing
Fast and slow language processing: A window into dual-process models of cognition
Hoist by its own petard: The ironic and fatal flaws of dual-process theory
How research on persuasion can inform dual-process models of judgment
Illusory intuitions: Challenging the claim of non-exclusivity
Individual differences and multi-step thinking
Learning how to reason and deciding when to decide
More than two intuitions
Not feeling right about uncertainty monitoring
Switching between system 1 and system 2: The nature of competing intuitions and the role of disfluency
Switching: Cultural fluency sustains and cultural disfluency disrupts thinking fast
The distinction between long-term knowledge and short-term control processes is valid and useful
The dual-system approach is a useful heuristic but does not accurately describe behavior
Toward dual-process theory 3.0
Unifying theories of reasoning and decision making
Using the study of reasoning to address the age of unreason
We know what stops you from thinking forever: A metacognitive perspective
What is intuiting and deliberating? A functional–cognitive perspective
When a thinker does not want to think: Adding meta-control into the working model
Why is system 1/system 2 switching affectively loaded?
“Switching” between fast and slow processes is just reward-based branching
Author response
Further advancing fast-and-slow theorizing