Dual processes in reasoning?
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Dual-process theory suggests humans rely more often on rapid, cognitively biased (System 1) thinking than on System 2 deliberate cognition.
“Dual-process theory suggests humans rely more often on rapid, cognitively biased (System 1) thinking than on System 2 deliberate cognition (Wason and Evans 1974).”
From Human-Clinical AI Agent Collaboration (2025) · cites this paper as Wason and Evans 1974
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629 · Cited by 5,137 · see citing works
Self-citationDual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612460685 · Cited by 4,271 · see citing works
Self-citationWood, W., & Rünger, D. (2016) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033417 · Cited by 1,445 · see citing works
The cognitive functions of language
Carruthers, P. (2002) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x02000122 · Cited by 728 · see citing works
An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning
Osman, M. (2004) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196730 · Cited by 444 · see citing works
Kool, W., & Botvinick, M. (2018) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0401-9 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
Buçinca, Z., Malaya, M. B., & Gajos, K. Z. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.09692 · Cited by 1,124 · see citing works
“According to the dual-process theory, humans mostly operate on System 1 thinking, which employs heuristics and shortcuts when making decisions [32, 63].”
Explainability pitfalls: beyond dark patterns in explainable AI
Ehsan, U., & Riedl, M. O. (2024) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2024.100971 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
The influence of prior belief on scientific thinking
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2002) · The Cognitive Basis of Science · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511613517.011 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Self-citationExplainability Pitfalls: Beyond Dark Patterns in Explainable AI
Ehsan, U., & Riedl, M. O. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.12480 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Raees, M., Khan, V.-J., Lykourentzou, I., & Papangelis, K. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791467 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Human-Clinical AI Agent Collaboration
Kadem, M., & Al-Khazraji, B. (2025) · Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series · doi:10.1609/aaaiss.v6i1.36060
Tao, Y., Meyer, J., & Kizilcec, R. F. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.23936
- Authors
- Wason, P. C., & Evans, J. S. B. T.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Venue
- Cognition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1974-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 141-154
- ISSN
- 0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2086282622
- Cited by
- 575
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 40 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 2.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cognition (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
- Keywords
- dual-process theory, deductive reasoning, negation, rationalization, conscious thought
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
