Reconceptualizing Metacognitive Experience in Dual-Process Reasoning: The Role of Emotion in Triggering Deliberation

IF 2.4 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Cédric Cortial, Jérôme Prado, Serge Caparos
{"title":"Reconceptualizing Metacognitive Experience in Dual-Process Reasoning: The Role of Emotion in Triggering Deliberation","authors":"Cédric Cortial,&nbsp;Jérôme Prado,&nbsp;Serge Caparos","doi":"10.1111/cogs.70084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Human thinking has long been posited to involve two different cognitive processes, also known as intuition and deliberation. While deliberation is effortful and cognitively costly, intuition is effortless. A central issue for reasoning theories is to account for the trigger of deliberation. Compelling theories explain the trigger of deliberative processes by the existence of a metacognitive experience. A feeling of rightness, of error, or of uncertainty would accompany our intuitions and, depending on their strength, triggers the need to use deliberation. Despite the emotional component that can be assumed in these metacognitive phenomena, and a whole literature linking emotion to cognition, these models do not fully embrace the emotional nature of these experiences, both empirically and theoretically. We believe that the psychology of reasoning, and particularly dual-process theories, would benefit from fully accepting this emotional dimension of reasoning.</p>","PeriodicalId":48349,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Science","volume":"49 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.70084","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Human thinking has long been posited to involve two different cognitive processes, also known as intuition and deliberation. While deliberation is effortful and cognitively costly, intuition is effortless. A central issue for reasoning theories is to account for the trigger of deliberation. Compelling theories explain the trigger of deliberative processes by the existence of a metacognitive experience. A feeling of rightness, of error, or of uncertainty would accompany our intuitions and, depending on their strength, triggers the need to use deliberation. Despite the emotional component that can be assumed in these metacognitive phenomena, and a whole literature linking emotion to cognition, these models do not fully embrace the emotional nature of these experiences, both empirically and theoretically. We believe that the psychology of reasoning, and particularly dual-process theories, would benefit from fully accepting this emotional dimension of reasoning.

双过程推理中元认知经验的再概念化:情绪在触发深思中的作用
长期以来,人们一直认为人类思维涉及两种不同的认知过程,也被称为直觉和思考。深思熟虑是费力的,认知上是昂贵的,而直觉是毫不费力的。推理理论的一个中心问题是解释审议的触发。令人信服的理论通过元认知经验的存在来解释审议过程的触发。一种正确、错误或不确定的感觉会伴随着我们的直觉,并根据它们的强度,触发我们深思熟虑的需要。尽管在这些元认知现象中可以假设情感成分,并且整个文献将情感与认知联系起来,但这些模型并没有完全包含这些经验的情感本质,无论是经验上还是理论上。我们相信,推理心理学,特别是双过程理论,将受益于完全接受推理的情感维度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: Cognitive Science publishes articles in all areas of cognitive science, covering such topics as knowledge representation, inference, memory processes, learning, problem solving, planning, perception, natural language understanding, connectionism, brain theory, motor control, intentional systems, and other areas of interdisciplinary concern. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers in cognitive science and its associated fields, including anthropologists, education researchers, psychologists, philosophers, linguists, computer scientists, neuroscientists, and roboticists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信