Do intuitive and deliberate judgments rely on two distinct neural systems? A case study in face processing

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 9:148721 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Arguably the most influential models of human decision-making today are based on the assumption that two separable systems – intuition and deliberation – underlie the judgments that people make. Our recent work is among the first to present neural evidence contrary to the predictions of these dual-systems accounts. We measured brain activations using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while participants were specifically instructed to either intuitively or deliberately judge the authenticity of emotional facial expressions. Results from three different analyses revealed both common brain networks of activation across decision mode and differential activations as a function of strategy adherence. We take our results to contradict popular dual-systems accounts that propose a clear-cut dichotomy of the processing systems, and to support rather a unified model. According to this, intuitive and deliberate judgment processes rely on the same rules, though only the former are thought to be characterized by non-conscious processing.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,829

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Is consciousness epiphenomenal? Comment on Susan Pockett.Gilberto Gomes - 2005 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 12 (12):77-79.
Taking apart the neural machinery of face processing.Winrich Freiwald & Doris Tsao - 2011 - In Andy Calder, Gillian Rhodes, Mark Johnson & Jim Haxby (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Face Perception. Oxford University Press.
Affect systems and neural systems.Eric A. Salzen - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (2):216-217.
The Neural Substrate of Emotions and Emotional Processing.Carlos J. Álvarez - 2015 - In Keith Augustine & Michael Martin (eds.), The Myth of an Afterlife: The Case against Life After Death. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 171-182.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-06-30

Downloads
22 (#708,419)

6 months
5 (#637,009)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile