The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Rationality and the Reflective Mind
Abstract
This book attempts to resolve the Great Rationality Debate in cognitive science—the debate about how much irrationality to ascribe to human cognition. It shows how the insights of dual-process theory and evolutionary psychology can be combined to explain why humans are sometimes irrational even though they possess remarkably adaptive cognitive machinery. The book argues that to characterize fully differences in rational thinking, we need to replace dual-process theories with tripartite models of cognition. Using a unique individual differences approach, it shows that the traditional second system (System 2) of dual-process theory must be further divided into the reflective mind and the algorithmic mind. Distinguishing them gives a better appreciation of the significant differences in their key functions: the key function of the reflective mind is to detect the need to interrupt autonomous processing and to begin simulation activities, whereas that of the algorithmic mind is to sustain the processing of decoupled secondary representations in cognitive simulation. The book then uses this algorithmic/reflective distinction to develop a taxonomy of cognitive errors made on tasks in the heuristics and biases literature. It presents the empirical data to show that the tendency to make these thinking errors is not highly related to intelligence. Using a tripartite model of cognition, the book shows how, when both are properly defined, rationality is a more encompassing construct than intelligence, and that IQ tests fail to assess individual differences in rational thought. It then goes on to discuss the types of thinking processes that would be measured if rational thinking were to be assessed as IQ has been.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 1,002
Reflective political reasoning: Political disagreement and empathy
Muradova, L., & Arceneaux, K. (2021) · European Journal of Political Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12490 · Cited by 36
Emotion and Political Judgment
Johnston, C. D., Lavine, H. G., & Woodson, B. W. (2015) · Political Research Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1065912915593644 · Cited by 40
Brenncke, M. (2023) · Journal of Consumer Policy · doi:10.1007/s10603-023-09554-7 · Cited by 35
Gong, M., Lempert, R. J., Parker, A. M., Mayer, L. A., Fischbach, J. R., Sisco, M. R., Mao, Z., Krantz, D. H., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2017) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.02.002 · Cited by 38
Who Thinks How? Social Patterns in Reliance on Automatic and Deliberate Cognition
Brett, G., & Miles, A. (2021) · Sociological Science · doi:10.15195/v8.a6 · Cited by 37
Dual-process theories of reasoning: The test of development
Barrouillet, P. (2011) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2011.07.006 · Cited by 35
Does domain matter? Monitoring accuracy across domains
Dentakos, S., Saoud, W., Ackerman, R., & Toplak, M. E. (2019) · Metacognition and Learning · doi:10.1007/s11409-019-09198-4 · Cited by 34
Cognitive Predictors of Precautionary Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Thoma, V., Weiss‐Cohen, L., Filkuková, P., & Ayton, P. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.589800 · Cited by 38
Contemporary Theories of Intelligence
Kaufman, J. C., Kaufman, S. B., & Plucker, J. A. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195376746.013.0051 · Cited by 36
Homo economicusand social marketing: questioning traditional models of behavior
Carvalho, H. C., & Mazzon, J. A. (2013) · Journal of Social Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsocm-11-2011-0080 · Cited by 36
Čavojová, V., & Ersoy, S. (2019) · Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdz120 · Cited by 33
Ethical Challenges in Digital Psychology and Cyberpsychology
Parsons, T. D. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108553384 · Cited by 33
Thompson, V. A., & Markovits, H. (2021) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104866 · Cited by 33
Klaczynski, P. A. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00665 · Cited by 33
Djulbegović, B. (2014) · Journal of Oncology Practice · doi:10.1200/jop.2013.001364 · Cited by 33
Naturalistic decision making and decision drivers in the front end of complex projects
Lawani, A., Flin, R. H., Ojo-Adedokun, R. F., & Benton, P. M. (2023) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2023.102502 · Cited by 38
Evolutionary Processes in Quantum Decision Theory
Yukalov, V. I. (2020) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e22060681 · Cited by 32
My point is valid, yours is not: myside bias in reasoning about abortion
Čavojová, V., Šrol, J., & Adamus, M. (2018) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2018.1518961 · Cited by 32
Buehler, D. (2017) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-017-1589-3 · Cited by 32
Integrated Environmental Modelling: human decisions, human challenges
Glynn, P. D. (2015) · Geological Society London Special Publications · doi:10.1144/sp408.9 · Cited by 30
Khalil, E. L. (2022) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-022-03815-7 · Cited by 33
Heuristics, Biases and the Psychology of Reasoning: State of the Art
Martín, M., & García, M. D. V. (2023) · Psychology · doi:10.4236/psych.2023.142016 · Cited by 33
Implicit and explicit processes in category-based induction: Is induction best when we don’t think?
Chen, S. Y., Ross, B. H., & Murphy, G. L. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/a0032064 · Cited by 31
Thinking fast and slow in the experience of humor
Ventis, L. (2015) · Humor - International Journal of Humor Research · doi:10.1515/humor-2015-0070 · Cited by 29
Truth‐Sensitivity and Folk Epistemology
Gerken, M. (2018) · Philosophy and Phenomenological Research · doi:10.1111/phpr.12515 · Cited by 29
de Costa, R., Ferrara, I., Toplak, M. E., Alam, A., Bowie, R., & Burnett, A. (2025) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126118 · Cited by 28
Grounded rationality: Descriptivism in epistemic context
Elqayam, S. (2012) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-012-0153-4 · Cited by 33
The Role of Positive Psychology in Interpersonal Decision Making
Khemka, I., & Hickson, L. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-59066-0_11 · Cited by 27
The mediating effect of reflective-analytic cognitive style on rational thought
Viator, R. E., Harp, N. L., Rinaldo, S. B., & Marquardt, B. B. (2019) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2019.1634151 · Cited by 29
Pereira, G. (2020) · Philosophy and poverty · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-45795-2_4 · Cited by 27
Debiasing System 1: Training favours logical over stereotypical intuiting
Boissin, E., Caparos, S., Voudouri, A., & Neys, W. D. (2022) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500008895 · Cited by 34
Metacognitive Feelings as a Source of Information for the Creative Process: A Conceptual Exploration
Puente‐Díaz, R. (2023) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence11030049 · Cited by 27
Human-centered visualization technologies for patient monitoring are the future: a narrative review
Gasciauskaite, G., Lunkiewicz, J., Roche, T. R., Spahn, D. R., Nöthiger, C. B., & Tscholl, D. W. (2023) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/s13054-023-04544-0 · Cited by 28
Hsu, C., Eastwood, J. D., & Toplak, M. E. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00407 · Cited by 27
Reason Taking the Reins From Impulsivity
Mamayek, C., Loughran, T., & Paternoster, R. (2015) · Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice · doi:10.1177/1043986215608532 · Cited by 27
Critical thinking as cooperation and its relation to mental health and social welfare
Ollinheimo, A., & Hakkarainen, K. (2022) · New Ideas in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2022.100988 · Cited by 29
From critical thinking to criticality and back again
Pettersson, H. (2023) · Journal of Philosophy of Education · doi:10.1093/jopedu/qhad021 · Cited by 26
Zenko, Z., Panteleimon Ekkekakis, A., & Kavetsos, G. (2016) · Sport Exercise and Performance Psychology · doi:10.1037/spy0000069 · Cited by 26
“The Gaze Heuristic:” Biography of an Adaptively Rational Decision Process
Hamlin, R. P. (2017) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.12253 · Cited by 26
Mental effort and discomfort: Testing the peak-end effect during a cognitively demanding task
Hsu, C., Propp, L., Panetta, L., Martin, S. M., Dentakos, S., Toplak, M. E., & Eastwood, J. D. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0191479 · Cited by 29
Investors' Processing of Financial Communications: A Persuasion Perspective
Hamilton, E. L., & Winchel, J. (2018) · Behavioral Research in Accounting · doi:10.2308/bria-52211 · Cited by 27
Sorge, G. B., Skilling, T., & Toplak, M. E. (2015) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.1864 · Cited by 25
Rationality, practice variation and person‐centred health policy: a threshold hypothesis
Djulbegović, B., Hamm, R. M., Mayrhofer, T., Hozo, I., & den Ende, J. V. (2015) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.12486 · Cited by 26
In Defence of the Belief-Plus Model of Faith
Mugg, J. (2016) · European Journal for Philosophy of Religion · doi:10.24204/ejpr.v8i2.65 · Cited by 25
How you know you are not a brain in a vat
Jackson, A. (2015) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-015-0445-x · Cited by 24
Philosophical intuitions, heuristics, and metaphors
Fischer, E. (2013) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-013-0292-2 · Cited by 24
Age differences in optimism bias are mediated by reliance on intuition and religiosity
Klaczynski, P. A. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2017.06.007 · Cited by 26
The Role of Intuition in Evaluative Judgment and Decision
Hurteau, M., Rahmanian, J., Houle, S., & Marchand, M.-P. (2020) · American Journal of Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1098214020908211 · Cited by 24
Conspiracy Theories in the Classroom: Problems and Potential Solutions
Dyrendal, A., & Jolley, D. (2020) · Religions · doi:10.3390/rel11100494 · Cited by 17
Reasoning and choice in the Monty Hall Dilemma (MHD): implications for improving Bayesian reasoning
Tubau, E., Aguilar‐Lleyda, D., & Johnson, E. D. M. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00353 · Cited by 24
A spiral model of musical decision-making
Bangert, D., Schubert, E., & Fabian, D. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00320 · Cited by 24
Leontyev, A., Sun, S., Wolfe, M., & Yamauchi, T. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00496 · Cited by 25
Hybrid foraging search in younger and older age.
Wiegand, I., Seidel, C., & Wolfe, J. M. (2019) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/pag0000387 · Cited by 29
Intuition, Analysis and Reflection in Business Ethics
Provis, C. (2015) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2688-z · Cited by 25
Imaging deductive reasoning and the new paradigm
Oaksford, M. (2015) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00101 · Cited by 24
Boosting debiasing: Impact of repeated training on reasoning
Franiatte, N., Boissin, E., Delmas, A., & Neys, W. D. (2023) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101845 · Cited by 23
Język(i) w czasie i przestrzeni
Lewandowska‐Tomaszczyk, B., Burska, K., Majdzińska-Koczorowicz, A., Deckert, M., Święcicka, M., Pawlikowska, M., Witalisz, A., Szczepańska, A., Poniewierska, A. E., Wacewicz, S., et al. (2021) · Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego eBooks · doi:10.18778/8220-544-2 · Cited by 23
Simonovic, B., Vione, K. C., Fido, D., Stupple, E. J. N., Martin, J., & Clarke, R. (2022) · Online Learning · doi:10.24059/olj.v26i2.2725 · Cited by 24
The Assessment of Rational Thinking
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2014) · Teaching of Psychology · doi:10.1177/0098628314537988 · Cited by 28
Self-citationReflective Argumentation: A Cognitive Function of Arguing
Hoffmann, M. H. G. (2015) · Argumentation · doi:10.1007/s10503-015-9388-9 · Cited by 25
Hansen, P. G., Skov, L. R., Jespersen, A. M., Skov, K. L., & Schmidt, K. (2016) · Journal of Foodservice Business Research · doi:10.1080/15378020.2016.1129227 · Cited by 23
Threats to student evaluative judgement and their management
Joughin, G., Boud, D. J., & Dawson, P. (2018) · Higher Education Research & Development · doi:10.1080/07294360.2018.1544227 · Cited by 25
Life-Philosophical Lecturing as a Systems-Intelligent Technology of the Self
Saarinen, E. (2015) · Journal of Philosophical Research · doi:10.5840/jpr201540supplement33 · Cited by 22
Willingham, D. T., & Riener, C. R. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316271988 · Cited by 22
Decision-making, cognition, and aphasia: developing a foundation for future discussions and inquiry
Suleman, S., & Kim, E. (2015) · Aphasiology · doi:10.1080/02687038.2015.1049584 · Cited by 22
Quantification of emotions in decision making
Yukalov, V. I. (2021) · Soft Computing · doi:10.1007/s00500-021-06442-5 · Cited by 24
The best of both worlds: Dual systems of reasoning in animals and AI
Kelly, M., & Barron, A. B. (2022) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105118 · Cited by 25
Dysfunctional trusting and distrusting: Integrating trust and bias perspectives
Patent, V. (2022) · Journal of Trust Research · doi:10.1080/21515581.2022.2113887 · Cited by 24
Ying, W., Xu, Z.-L., Lou, J.-Y., & Chen, K. (2023) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-023-04326-w · Cited by 22
Hertzog, C. K., Smith, R. M., & Ariel, R. (2017) · Experimental Aging Research · doi:10.1080/0361073x.2017.1398508 · Cited by 22
Lin, W., Shih, Y.-L., Wang, S., & Tang, Y.-W. (2018) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2018.06.007 · Cited by 27
Integrating Timing Considerations to Improve Testing Practices
Margolis, M. J., & Feinberg, R. A. (2020) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781351064781 · Cited by 22
Schubert, A., Ferreira, M. B., Mata, A., & Riemenschneider, B. (2021) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104629 · Cited by 22
Rational Belief in Lottery- and Preface-Situations
Schurz, G. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108379755.008 · Cited by 21
Epistemic Irrationality in the Bayesian Brain
Williams, D. R. (2019) · The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1093/bjps/axz044 · Cited by 23
Cécillon, F.-X., Mermillod, M., Leys, C., Lachaux, J.-P., Vigouroux, S. L., & Shankland, R. (2024) · Children · doi:10.3390/children11010123 · Cited by 27
Self-Disorders, Neurocognition and Rationality in Schizophrenia: A Preliminary Study
Nordgaard, J., Revsbech, R., & Henriksen, M. G. (2015) · Psychopathology · doi:10.1159/000435892 · Cited by 21
Intuition and analytic processes in probabilistic reasoning: The role of time pressure
Furlan, S., Agnoli, F., & Reyna, V. F. (2015) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.006 · Cited by 27
La Génesis de la Argumentación. Un Estudio con Niños de 3 a 5 Años en Distintos Contextos de Juego
Aires, U. D. B., Migdalek, M. J., Rosemberg, C. R., Aires, U. D. B., Yáñéz, C. S., & Portales, U. D. (2015) · Íkala Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura · doi:10.17533/udea.ikala.v19n3a03 · Cited by 22
Levy, N. L., & Mandelbaum, E. (2014) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199686520.003.0002 · Cited by 21
Dual Process Theory: Systems, Types, Minds, Modes, Kinds or Metaphors? A Critical Review
Bellini-Leite, S. C. (2017) · Review of Philosophy and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s13164-017-0376-x · Cited by 21
Preference and strategy in proposer’s prosocial giving in the ultimatum game
Inaba, M., Inoue, Y., Akutsu, S., Takahashi, N., & Yamagishi, T. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0193877 · Cited by 21
Measuring decision‐making competence in Chinese adults
Peng, J., Feng, T., Zhang, J., Zhao, L., Zhang, Y., Chang, Y. Y., Zhang, Y., & Xiao, W. (2018) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.2114 · Cited by 21
Using a “Think Aloud” protocol to understand meta-attention in club-level golfers
Oliver, A., McCarthy, P. J., & Burns, L. (2020) · International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1612197x.2020.1766536 · Cited by 21
When Forcing Collaboration is the Most Sensible Choice
Cherubini, M., Niksirat, K. S., Boldi, M., Keopraseuth, H., Such, J. M., & Huguenin, K. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3449127 · Cited by 23
Religious Cognition as a Dual-Process: Developing the Model
Oviedo, L. (2013) · Method & Theory in the Study of Religion · doi:10.1163/15700682-12341288 · Cited by 22
Noggle, R. (2025) · doi:10.1093/9780198924920.001.0001 · Cited by 22
Becoming a cognitive miser? Antecedents and consequences of addictive ChatGPT use
Deng, Z., & Deng, Z. (2025) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118467 · Cited by 20
Mercado-Doménech, S., Carrus, G., Terán, A., & Pirchio, S. (2017) · Journal of Educational Cultural and Psychological Studies (ECPS Journal) · doi:10.7358/ecps-2017-016-merc · Cited by 21
Unconscious Gender Bias in Academia: Scarcity of Empirical Evidence
Skov, T. (2020) · Societies · doi:10.3390/soc10020031 · Cited by 20
Effective preservation decision strategies
Henderson, J., & Waller, R. (2015) · Studies in Conservation · doi:10.1179/2047058415y.0000000019 · Cited by 20
Heuristic Bias and Conflict Detection During Thinking
Neys, W. D. (2015) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/bs.plm.2014.09.001 · Cited by 22
Intuition in Kahneman and Tversky’s Psychology of Rationality
Sturm, T. (2014) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139136419.015 · Cited by 19
Identifying obstacles to transfer of critical thinking skills
van Peppen, L. M., van Gog, T., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., & Alexander, P. A. (2021) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2021.1990302 · Cited by 24
Enriching Thinking Through Discourse
Kuhn, D., Bruun, S., & Geithner, C. (2024) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.13420 · Cited by 19
Over, D. E., & Evans, J. S. B. T. (2024) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009495349 · Cited by 19
Acar, İ. H., Frohn, S. R., Prokasky, A., Molfese, V. J., & Bates, J. E. (2018) · Infant and Child Development · doi:10.1002/icd.2116 · Cited by 21
Understanding emotion as a strategy in policing
Sweeney, K. (2021) · The Police Journal Theory Practice and Principles · doi:10.1177/0032258x211018496 · Cited by 23
Metacognitive control in single- vs. dual-process theory
Rumana, A. (2022) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2022.2047106 · Cited by 19
Against moral judgment. The empirical case for moral abolitionism
Sauer, H. (2021) · Philosophical Explorations · doi:10.1080/13869795.2021.1908580 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Stanovich, K.
- Corresponding author
- Stanovich, Keith
- ORCID
- Stanovich, Keith
- Venue
- Oxford University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2010-12-03
- OpenAlex
- W654145152
- Cited by
- 1,041
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 67 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 95 · 2022: 90 · 2021: 111 · 2020: 82 · 2019: 111 · 2018: 58 · 2017: 65 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 83 · 2014: 55 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 34
- FWCI
- 16.78
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Keywords
- rationality, dual-process theory, cognitive simulation, cognitive errors, heuristics and biases, individual differences, intelligence, intelligence testing, System 2, evolutionary psychology
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
