What effect does the use of automatic versus controlled thinking have on the quality of reasoning? Overall, how good are people as social thinkers?
PSYC2003: Social Psychology
Word count: 1346
- November 2020
The field of social psychology has always paid a lot of attention to the question “How good are people as social thinkers?”. Social thinking, or social cognition can be described as the way people think about themselves and the social world around them, and how they select, interpret, remember and use social information to make judgements and decisions (Aronson, Wilson, Akert, & Sommers, 2020). When it comes to social thinking, there are two main types that can be distinguished, which are automatic and controlled thinking. Automatic thinking is a quick, low-effort and nonconscious way of perceiving things, whereas controlled thinking requires high effort and is deliberate. This essay will address the differences between the two types of social thinking and the effect they have on the quality of our reasoning.
Humans have been proven to be very good at social cognition, but of course, they are not perfect. Both types of social thinking have their own advantages and flaws too, and it can be stated that they are significantly different from each other. When we engage in automatic thinking, we perceive and analyse our environment quickly and effortlessly, based on past experiences and our pre-existing knowledge of the world (Aronson, Wilson, Akert, & Sommers, 2020). One of the most well-known use of automatic thinking is the use of schemas. Schemas by definition are mental structures that people use to organise their knowledge about the social world around themes or subjects. They therefore influence the information people notice, think about and remember (Bartlett, 1932; Heine, Proulx& Vohs, 2006; Markus, 1977). People apply schemas quickly and automatically upon encountering a new person or situation. They encompass our impression and knowledge of ourselves and people around us, social roles or even certain events, and they help us make sense of new situations as well. A representation of how schemas work can be examined by looking at a study done by Snyder and Swann in 1978. In an experiment they took two groups of people and put them in pairs. One half was asked to find out whether the other person was an introvert, and the other half was supposed to guess if their partner was an extrovert by asking
A more complex way of producing thoughts is the use of controlled thinking. To our current knowledge, humans are the only species capable of doing this. Engaging in controlled thinking means deliberately and consciously thinking about the self and environment, and effortfully selecting the right actions (Aronson, Wilson, Akert, & Sommers, 2020). While the brain is often on “auto-pilot”, controlled thinking takes over in unusual situations. When it comes to controlled thinking, the question of free will has been long debated. One might think that deciding to do a certain action is a fully controlled thought process, however, some evidence may suggest otherwise. According to Daniel Wegner (2002, 2004; Ebert & Wegner, 2011), there can be an illusion of free will, which means that actions could actually be produced by an unconscious intention rather than a controlled thought. This could mean that the conscious thought is a consequence of an unconscious process and is not the cause of one’s decision. It has been proven that the belief of free will is important, as the more people believe in it, the more likely they are to engage in moral actions such as helping others and the less likely they are to cheat, for example (Baumeister, Masicampo &Dewall, 2009).
In certain situations, people engage in counterfactual reasoning, a form of controlled thinking, which can be described as mentally changing some aspects of the past as a way of imagining what might have been (Markman et al., 2009; Myers et al., 2014; Petrocelli et al., 2015; Roese, 1997; Wong, Galinsky, & Kray, 2009). This process involves imagining alternative scenarios and outcomes, and it most likely occurs when unexpected or negative events happen. An example for this phenomenon could be the winners of a race. The silver medal winner is most likely to feel worse than the bronze medallist, because they imagine they could have won the first place. Bronze medallists, on the other hand, can imagine not getting any medal at all, and so they tend to not feel as disappointed. The use of counterfactual reasoning motivates people to do better in the future, but it has some negative consequences as well. It can lead to rumination in some cases, and the repetitive focus on
negative things is often associated with depression (Lyubomirsky, Layous, Chancellor, & Nelson, 2015; Trick et al., 2016; Watkins & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2014).
Controlled thinking is important to override certain flaws of automatic thinking. This way human thinking can be improved, as it is not always the most efficient. Often times people tend to be overly optimistic about how accurate their judgement is, despite past events that may suggest the opposite. The tendency to be too optimistic about how soon one will complete a project, despite having failed to complete similar tasks in time in the past is called the planning fallacy (Buehler, Griffin, & Peetz, 2010; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). However, it has been proven that thinking can be improved by the use of certain techniques, so even though social cognition can go wrong in many ways, there is always a possibility to get better.
Despite all the inadequacies and flaws, humans are still extremely good at social cognition. It can be stated that most of social cognition consists of automatic thinking, but the role of controlled thinking is just as important. There is no use deciding which of these thinking methods is better, as they differ from each other in many ways and are usually used in different situations. Instead, it could be agreed on that the best option a mix of both, because they both affect the quality of our reasoning in different ways. As the only known species that use controlled thinking, we are capable of having more complex thought processes and making more difficult decisions. However, human thinking is still not perfect and certainly has many flaws, which is natural, and it can always be improved as well.
References:
Markman, K. D., Karadogan, F., Lindberg, M. J., & Zell, E. (2009). Counterfactual thinking: Function and dysfunction. In K. D. Markman, W. M. P. Klein, & J. A. Suhr (Eds.), Handbook of imagination and mental simulation (pp. 175– 193). New York: Psychology Press.
Markus, H. R. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 , 63– 78.
Myers, A. L., McCrea, S. M., & Tyser, M. P. (2014). The role of thought- content and mood in the preparative benefits of upward counterfactual thinking. Motivation and Emotion, 38 (1), 166– 182.
Petrocelli, J. V., Kammrath, L. K., Brinton, J. E., Uy, M. R. Y., & Cowens, D. F. L. (2015). Holding on to what might have been may loosen (or tighten) the ties that bind us: A counterfactual potency analysis of previous dating alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56 , 50– 59.
Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B. (1978). Hypothesis-testing processes in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 (11), 1202– 1212. doi/10.1037/0022-3514.36.11.
Trick, L., Watkins, E., Windeatt, S., & Dickens, C. (2016). The association of perseverative negative thinking with depression, anxiety and emotional distress in people with long term conditions: A systematic review. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 91 , 89– 101.
Wong, E. M., Galinsky, A. D., & Kray, L. J. (2009). The counterfactual mind-set: A decade of research. In K. D. Markman, W. M. P. Klein, & J. A. Suhr (Eds.), Handbook of imagination and mental simulation (pp. 161– 174). New York: Psychology Press.
Watkins, E. R., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2014). A habit-goal framework of depressive rumination. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 123 , 24– 34.