Today

In the decision sciences world, these two different pathways for decision making are referred to as System 1 and System 2. System 1 decision making is intuitive – it is fast, almost automatic.  System 1 thinking seems effortless – it is that “aha” thought that just appears.  This type of thinking often arises from association (whoa, I’ve seen this before…).  It is frequently emotional – we hold our intuitive thoughts very dear – we are often quite certain about our intuitive thinking, we just know.  

System 1 thinking may also be referred to as recognition-primed decision making, fixed pattern responses or stereotypes.  You might also see this type of decision making referred to as implicit knowledge or behavior.    Expertise is associated with System 1 thinking.

On the other hand, System 2 decision making is deliberate problem solving.  It is a much slower process; this type of thinking requires effort.  Doubt and uncertainty are part of System 2 processes which are linear – step 1, step 2, step 3 and is often associated with specific rules or boundaries.

While we may assert that the superior cognitive abilities of the human brain are at the heart of all of our decision-making, unconscious decision-rules – what are called judgment heuristics in the decision making sciences world – are a common part of our daily experience. Regardless of what label is applied to these unconscious decision rules, it is important to understand that these underlying decision processes govern the behavior of every human.  

There is research that suggests that System 1, recognition-primed decision-making, or fixed pattern behaviors responding to trigger features (constellations (groups) of sensory data that compile into a pattern that has our brain scream OMG!), is responsible for as much as 90% of the decisions that are made in challenging settings.  (Klein 2006) Complex decision-making settings, such as aeronautics or warfare, illustrate how highly adaptive and efficient these fixed pattern behaviors can be.  A number of industries, including airlines, invest significantly in simulation training to develop the fluid decision making and responsiveness that arise from recognition-primed decision making.  Pilots are repeatedly subjected to challenging decision making scenarios in simulation so that pilots respond accurately with split second reaction times.  Many teaching hospitals have established simulation labs where they expose teams of staff members:  nurses, physicians, physician assistants – to challenges encountered in the emergency room, operating suite or cardiac codes so that the teams learn how to respond instantly and seamlessly as a unit.  Football players will run drill after drill in order to take the guesswork out of how a play will unfold during a game.

There are a number of books published about this idea that System 1 or recognition-primed decision making governs our behavior under stress.  “Sources of Power”  (Gary Klein), “How We Decide” (Jonah Lehner), “Thinking Fast and Slow” (Danial Kahneman), “Blink” (Malcolm Gladwell), “How Doctor’s Think” (Jerome Groopman) and others provide numerous examples and studies that support the idea that recognition-primed decision making plays a large role in how the human brain makes decisions – particularly when under stress or uncertainty. 

Isn’t it comforting to know that chances are that when things get dicey, your brain will more likely than not flip into automatic pilot – System 1 or recognition primed decision making – and ignore all your “high level processing capacity?”  But that is how our brains function – the first response is to – at the speed of light – reach back to identify what might have worked in similar situations before and to rely on that existing knowledge in times of danger or stress.  We need to keep in mind that our brains reward us with a wash of dopamine when we repeat patterns that have yielded positive outcomes before.

Recognition-primed decision-making/System 1 thinking, while an efficient data processing strategy, does not always generate an accurate assessment of the situation, nor does it always provide the best response.  We only know what we know.  Our neural origami only stores what we have personally experienced. And that personal experience governs how we see the world until we are challenged by life to revise our thinking.

Here are a few scientific papers that speak to this same issue:

Vandermeeren R, Hebbrecht M. Het duale procesmodel van verslaving; op weg naar een integratieve visie? [The dual process model of addiction. Towards an integrated model?]. Tijdschr Psychiatr. 2012;54(8):731-40. Dutch. PMID: 22893538.

McClure SM, Bickel WK. A dual-systems perspective on addiction: contributions from neuroimaging and cognitive training. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014 Oct;1327:62-78. doi: 10.1111/nyas.12561. Erratum in: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014 Nov;1328:35. PMID: 25336389; PMCID: PMC4285342.

Hongxia Li, Yafei Guo, Quanlei Yu, Self-control makes the difference: The psychological mechanism of dual processing model on internet addicts’ unusual behavior in intertemporal choice, Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 101, 2019, Pages 95-103,