Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T08:35:08.146Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Problems with the dual-systems approach to temporal cognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2019

David E. Melnikoff  and
John A. Bargh Open the ORCID record for John A. Bargh [Opens in a new window]
David E. Melnikoff
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT06511. david.melnikoff@yale.edu  john.bargh@yale.comhttps://acmelab.yale.edu/
John A. Bargh
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT06511. david.melnikoff@yale.edu  john.bargh@yale.comhttps://acmelab.yale.edu/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Contrary to Hoerl & McCormack (H&M), we argue that the best account of temporal cognition in humans is one in which a single system becomes capable of representing time. We suggest that H&M's own evidence for dual systems of temporal cognition – simultaneous contradictory beliefs – does not recommend dual systems, and that the single system approach is more plausible.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 42 , 2019 , e264
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

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

Bermúdez, J. L. (2000) Self-deception, intentions, and contradictory beliefs. Analysis 60(268):309–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betsch, T. & Fiedler, K. (1999) Understanding conjunction effects in probability judgments: The role of implicit mental models. European Journal of Social Psychology 29(1):75–93.3.0.CO;2-F>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. (2008) Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59:255–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferguson, M., Mann, T. & Wojnowicz, M. T. (2014) Rethinking duality: Criticisms and ways forward. In: Dual-process theories of the social mind, ed. Sherman, J. W., Gawronski, B., & Trope, Y., pp. 578–94. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. & Regier, T. (1996) How do we tell an association from a rule? Comment on Sloman (1996) Psychological Bulletin 119(1):23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keren, G. & Schul, Y. (2009) Two is not always better than one: A critical evaluation of two-system theories. Perspectives on Psychological Science 4(6):533–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W. & Gigerenzer, G. (2011) Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles. Psychological Review 118:97–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melnikoff, D. E. & Bargh, J. A. (2018) The mythical number two. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 22(4):280–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osman, M. (2004) An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11(6):988–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloman, S. A. (1996) The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 119(1):3–22. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar