CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 230Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentCognitive Abilities and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Analytic and Heuristic Processing Influences on Adolescent Reasoning and Decision-Making

Klaczynski, Paul A·2001·Child Development
DOI 10.1111/1467-8624.00319
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The normative/descriptive gap is the discrepancy between actual reasoning and traditional standards for reasoning. The relationship between age and the normative/descriptive gap was examined by presenting adolescents with a battery of reasoning and decision-making tasks. Middle adolescents (N= 76) performed closer to normative ideals than early adolescents (N=66), although the normative/descriptive gap was large for both groups. Correlational analyses revealed that (1) normative responses correlated positively with each other, (2) nonnormative responses were positively interrelated, and (3) normative and nonnormative responses were largely independent. Factor analyses suggested that performance was based on two processing systems. The “analytic” system operates on “decontextualized” task representations and underlies conscious, computational reasoning. The “heuristic” system operates on “contextualized,” content-laden representations and produces “cognitively cheap” responses that sometimes conflict with traditional norms. Analytic processing was more clearly linked to age and to intelligence than heuristic processing. Implications for cognitive development, the competence/performance issue, and rationality are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1467-8624.00319

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 63 references

1 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 228

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Klaczynski, P. A.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Klaczynski, Paul A
ORCID
Klaczynski, Paul A
Venue
Child Development
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2001-05-01
Volume
72
Issue
3
Pages
844-861
ISSN
  • 0009-3920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8624
DOI
10.1111/1467-8624.00319
OpenAlex
W2005819009
Cited by
230
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 10
FWCI
4.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Child Development (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
decision-making, analytical processing, heuristic processing, cognitive development, age differences, intelligence, rationality, competence versus performance, dual-process models
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Psychology, Adolescent, Awareness, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Personality Development, Probability Learning, Problem Solving, Reference Values

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