Amit Adi, Mentser Sari, Arieli Sharon, Porzycki Niva
Department of Education and Psychology.
The Jerusalem School of Business Administration.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2021 Mar;120(3):765-788. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000284. Epub 2020 Mar 5.
Deliberate thinking and systematic thinking are often conflated when contrasted with intuitive thinking. We argue that, in fact, nonintuitive thinking is multidimensional, and that deliberate and systematic thinking are distinct nonintuitive processes. We establish their distinct meanings in 6 studies using 3 research paradigms. Our first paradigm (Studies 1 and 2) takes an individual differences approach. Adopting a meta-analytic design with the addition of new data, we find that deliberate thinking and systematic thinking are differentially associated with personality traits (openness to experience with deliberate thinking; conscientiousness with systematic thinking) and with personal values (self-direction vs. conformity with deliberate thinking; security vs. stimulation with systematic thinking). Our second paradigm (Studies 3 and 4) employs a decision-making task (choosing between different problem types and levels of difficulty) to test for deliberate and systematic thinking in isolation from each other. We show that systematic thinking (in oneself and others) predicts a selection of rule-based over context-based problems, while deliberate thinking predicts a selection of difficult over simple problems. Our third paradigm (Studies 5 and 6) takes a cultural perspective. We show that although deliberate thinking is universally perceived as signifying competence, the contribution of systematic thinking to perceptions of competence is culturally dependent, differing for participants under a collectivistic versus individualistic mindset. Together our findings highlight the need to distinguish between deliberate and systematic thinking and underscore the need for studies of intuitive versus nonintuitive thinking to take a multidimensional perspective. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
与直觉思维相对比时，深思熟虑的思维和系统的思维常常被混为一谈。我们认为，事实上，非直觉思维是多维度的，而且深思熟虑的思维和系统的思维是截然不同的非直觉过程。我们使用三种研究范式，通过六项研究确定了它们不同的含义。我们的第一种范式（研究1和研究2）采用个体差异法。采用元分析设计并添加新数据，我们发现深思熟虑的思维和系统的思维与人格特质（开放性与深思熟虑的思维相关；尽责性与系统的思维相关）以及个人价值观（自我导向与深思熟虑的思维中的从众相对；安全与系统的思维中的刺激相对）存在差异关联。我们的第二种范式（研究3和研究4）采用决策任务（在不同类型和难度水平的问题之间进行选择）来分别测试深思熟虑的思维和系统的思维。我们表明，系统的思维（自身和他人的）预测会选择基于规则而非基于情境的问题，而深思熟虑的思维预测会选择困难问题而非简单问题。我们的第三种范式（研究5和研究6）采用文化视角。我们表明，尽管深思熟虑的思维普遍被视为能力的标志，但系统的思维对能力认知的贡献取决于文化，在集体主义与个人主义思维模式下的参与者中有所不同。我们的研究结果共同强调了区分深思熟虑的思维和系统的思维的必要性，并强调了对直觉与非直觉思维的研究需要采取多维度视角。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2021美国心理学会，保留所有权利）
