Abstract
Dual-process theory is a widely utilized modelling tool in the behavioral sciences. It conceptualizes decision-making as an interaction between two types of cognitive processes, some of them fast and intuitive, others slow and reflective. We make a novel contribution to this literature by exploring differences between adults with clinically diagnosed ADHD and healthy controls for a wide range of behaviors. Given the clinical picture and nature of ADHD symptoms, we had a strong a priori reason to expect differences in intuitive vs reflective processing; and thus an unusually strong case for testing the predictions of dual-process theory. We found mixed results, with overall weaker effects than expected, except for risk taking, where individuals with ADHD showed increased domain sensitivity for gains vs losses. Some of our predictions were supported by the data but other patterns are more difficult to reconcile with theory. On balance, our results provide only limited empirical support for using dual-process theory to understand basic social and economic decision-making.
Highlights
Dual-process theory is a widely utilized modelling tool in the behavioral sciences
One hundred and eighty-four participants took up the study, n = 50 in the Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) group and n = 134 in the control group
Everyone in the ADHD group answered all questions in the study, except for a few missing responses on some of the background questions at the end of the study
Summary
Dual-process theory is a widely utilized modelling tool in the behavioral sciences. It conceptualizes decision-making as an interaction between two types of cognitive processes, some of them fast and intuitive, others slow and reflective. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults presents clinically with functional deficits in various aspects of life such as education, work performance, relationships, parenting, social and economic status[1,2,3] These deficits are due to difficulties within three symptom clusters: (a) inattention causing careless mistakes, low frustration tolerance and problems in focusing on paperwork, reading, organizing and thinking through complex tasks; (b) hyperactivity resulting in difficulties sitting still and relaxing, tendency to work long hours or more than one job and (c) impulsivity expressed in acting and talking impulsively, overspending, frequently changing jobs and relationships, engaging in kick-seeking and/or antisocial behaviors[4]. The goal of our paper is to examine how and to what extent intuitive decision-making influences basic social and economic decision-making that is central to understanding a wide variety of everyday behavior: (i) altruistic behavior, (ii) moral judgment, (iii) risky choices, and (iv) intertemporal choices To this end, we develop predictions using dual-process theory in each of these four domains and subsequently test them in an experiment, by Scientific Reports | (2020) 10:20076. Type 1 process (intuitive) Defining features Does not require working memory Autonomous Typical correlates Fast Nonconscious Automatic Associative Experience-based decision-making
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
