A Dynamic Dual Process Model for Binary Choices: Serial Versus Parallel Architecture

Alós-Ferrer, C. (2018). A dual-process diffusion model. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31, 203–2018. Brocas, I., & Carrillo, J. (2014). Value computation and value modulation: A dual-process theory of self-control (Tech. Rep.). Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic cognition approach to decision making. Psychological Review, 100, 432–459. De Martino, B., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science, 313(5787), 684–687. DeNeys, W. (2021). On dual- and single-process models of thinking. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1413–1427. Devaine, M., Waszak, F., & Mamassian, P. (2014). Dual process for intentional and reactive decisions. PLOS Computational Biolog3, 9(4), e1003013. Diederich, A., & Colonius, H. (2019). Multisensory integration and exogenous spatial attention: A time-window-of-integration analysis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1. Diederich, A., & Mallahi-Karai, K. (2018). Stochastic methods for modeling decision-making. H. Batchelder W. Colonius and E.N. Dzhafarov (Eds.), New handbook of mathematical psychology vol. ii modeling and measurement (pp. 1–70). Cambridge University Press. Diederich, A., & Oswald, P. (2014). Sequential sampling model for multiattribute choice alternatives with random attention time and processing order. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(697). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00697 Diederich, A. (1997). Dynamic stochastic models for decision making with time constraints. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 41(3), 260–274. Diederich, A. (2003). Decision making under conflict: Decision time as a measure of conflict strength. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(1), 167–176. Diederich, A. (2008). A further test on sequential sampling models accounting for payoff effects on response bias in perceptual decision tasks. Perception and Psychophysics, 70(2), 229–256. Diederich, A. (2016). A multistage attention-switching model account for payoff effects on perceptual decision tasks with manipulated processing order. Decision, 3(2), 81. Diederich, A., & Busemeyer, J. (1999). Conflict and the stochastic-dominance principle of decision making. Psychological science, 10(4), 353–359. Diederich, A., & Busemeyer, J. (2006). Modeling the effects of payoff on response bias in a perceptual discrimination task: Threshold-bound, drift rate-change, or two-stage-processing hypothesis. Perception and Psychophysics, 68(2), 194–207. Diederich, A., & Colonius, H. (2008). When a high-intensity “distractor" is better than a low-intensity one: Modeling the effect of an auditory or tactile nontarget stimulus on visual saccadic reaction time. Brain Research, 1242, 219–230. Diederich, A., & Colonius, H. (2015). The time window of multisensory integration: Relating reaction times and judgments of temporal order. Psychological Review, 122(2), 232–241. Diederich, A., & Colonius, H. (2021). A two-stage diffusion modeling approach to the compelled-response task. Psychological Review, 128(4), 787–802. Diederich, A., & Oswald, P. (2016). Multi-stage sequential sampling models with finite or infinite time horizon and variable boundaries. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 74, 128–145. Diederich, A., & Trueblood, J. S. (2018). A dynamic dual process model of risky decision making. Psychological Review, 125(2), 270–292. Diederich, A., & Zhao, W. (2019). A dynamic dual process model of intertemporal choice. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 22, 1–14. Dolan, R. J., & Dayan, P. (2013). Goals and habits in the brain. Neuron, 80(2), 312–325. Evans, J. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 378–395. Evans, J. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Pychology, 59, 255–278. Evans, J., & Stanovich, K. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. Fiala, B., Arico, A., & Nichols, S. (2012). On the psychological origins of dualism: Dual-process cognition and the explanatory gap (pp. 88–110). Creating Consilience: Integrating the Sciences and the Humanities. Fox, C., & Poldrack, R. (2009). Prospect theory and the brain. P.W. Glimcher, E. Fehr, C. Camerer, and R.A. Poldrack (Eds.), Neuroeconomics: Decision making and the brain (pp. 145–173). London: Academic Press. Fudenberg, D., & Levine, D. (2006). A dual-self model of impulse control. The American Economic Review, 96(5), 1449–1476. Gawronski, B., & Creighton, L.A. (2013). Dual process theories. D. Carlston (Ed.), Oxford library of psychology. The oxford handbook of social cognition (pp. 282–312). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Guo, L., Trueblood, J. S., & Diederich, A. (2017). Thinking fast increases framing effects in risky decision making. Psychological Science, 28(4), 530–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616689092 Gürçay, B., & Baron, J. (2017). Challenges for the sequential two-system model of moral judgement. Thinking and Reasoning, 23(1), 49–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2016.1216011 Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, and D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision making under risk (pp. 263–291). XLVII: Econometrica. Keren, G., & Schul, Y. (2009). Two is not always better than one: A critical evaluation of two-system theories. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(6), 533–550. Klauer, K., Beller, S., & Hütter, M. (2010). Conditional reasoning in context: A dual-source model of probabilistic inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(2), 298–323. Krajbich, I., Bartling, B., Hare, T., & Fehr, E. (2015). Rethinking fast and slow based on a critique of reaction-time reverse inference. Nature Communications, 1–9,. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8455 Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T., & Bhatia, S. (2015). Modeling the interplay between affect and deliberation. Decision, 2(2), 55. Luce, R. D. (1986). Response times. New York: Oxford University Press. Mallahi-Karai, K., & Diederich, A. (2019). Decision with multiple alternatives: Geometric models in higher dimensions - The cube model. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 93,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2019.102294 Mallahi-Karai, K., & Diederich, A. (2021). Decision with multiple alternatives: Geometric models in higher dimensions - The disk model. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 100, Milli, S., Lieder, F., & Griffiths, T. L. (2021). A rational reinterpretation of dual-process theories. Cognition, 217, 104881. Morin, S., Dube’, L., & Chebat, J.-C. (2007). The role of pleasant music in servicescapes: A test of the dual model of environmental perception. Journal of Retailing, 83(1), 115–130. Mukherjee, K. (2010). A dual system model of preferences under risk. Psychological Review, 117(1), 243. Ratcliff, R., Smith, P. L., Brown, S. D., & McKoon, G. (2016). Diffusion decision model: Current issues and history. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(4), 260–281. Robinson, H. (2020). Dualism. E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. (https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/dualism/) Roe, R. M., Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (2001). Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionist model of decision making. Psychological Review, 108, 370–392. Salinas, E., Scerra, V., Hauser, C., Costello, M. G., & Stanford, T. (2014). Decoupling speed and accuracy in an urgent decision-making task reveals multiple contributions to their trade-off. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, 85. https://doi.org/10.3389/2Ffnins.2014.00085 Salinas, E., Shankar, S., Costello, M. G., Zhu, D., & Stanford, T. (2010). Waiting is the hardest part: Comparison of two computational strategies for performing a compelled-response task. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 4, 153. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R.M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84(1), 1–66. Shankar, S., Massoglia, D. P., Zhu, D., Costello, M. G., Stanford, T., & Salinas, E. (2011). Tracking the temporal evolution of a perceptual judgment using a compelled-response task. Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 8406–8421. Shiffrin, R.M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: Ii.perceptual learning, automaticattending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2), 127–190. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3. Smith, P. L. (2000). Stochastic dynamic models of response time and accuracy: A foundational primer. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44(3), 408–463. Smith, E. R., & DeCoster, J. (2000). Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 108–131. Stanford, T., Shankar, S., Massoglia, D. P., Costello, M. G., & Salinas, E. (2010). Perceptual decision making in less than 30 milliseconds. Nature Neuroscience, 13(3), 379–386. Stanovich, K., & West, R. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–665. Townsend, J.T. (1990). Serial vs. parallel processing: Sometimes they look like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but they can (and should) be distinguished. Psychological Science, 1(1), 46–54. Townsend, J. T. (1972). Some results on the identifiability of parallel and serial processes. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 25, 168–199. Trueblood, J., Brown, S., & Heathcote, A. (2014). The multi-attribute linear ballistic accumulator model of context effects in multi-alternative choice. Psychological Review, 121, 179–205. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323. Usher, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice. Psychological Review, 111, 757–769. vonNeumann, J. V., & Morgenstern, O. (1953). Theory of games and economic behavior (3rd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wollschläger, L. M., & Diederich, A. (2017). A computational model for constructing preferences for multiple choice options. G. Gunzelmann, A. Howes, T. Tenbrink, and E.J. Davelaar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1351–1356). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. Retrieved from https://mindmodeling.org/cogsci2017/papers/0259/paper0259.pdf Wollschläger, L. M., & Diederich, A. (2012). The 2N-ary choice tree model for N-alternative preferential choice. Frontiers in Cognitive Science, 3, 189. Wollschläger, L. M., & Diederich, A. (2020). Similarity, attraction, and compromise effects: Original findings, recent empirical observations, and computational cognitive process models. American Journal of Psychology, 133, 1–30.