One brain, two systems

In his book entitled Thinking Fast and Slow,⁵ Daniel Kahneman (a Nobel Prize-winning psychologist) proposed that our brains rely on a dual-core system to process information and make choices. He describes the first system as automatic (emotional) and the second as controlled (cognitive).⁶ These two processes can be roughly distinguished by where they occur in the brain,⁷ and together they form the backbone of our decision-making. If we understand how each system works, we can use this knowledge to make better decisions and influence those of the people around us.

According to Kahneman, System 1 (thinking fast) is intuitive, automatic and generally operates below the level of our conscious awareness.⁸ It is in this subconscious setting that we undergo different affective (emotional) states, many of which motivate impulse reactions and feelings such as hunger, fear, sexual desire and pain. These states can even have a bearing on the way we perceive and remember things and can affect everything from our ability to learn to the goals we choose to pursue.⁹

Psychologist Zajonc¹⁰ explains that these are the same processes that motivate us to approach or avoid something – decisions on which we depend to survive. It’s this system that ‘knows’ when our partner is in a bad mood, or instinctively swerves the car when a child walks out on to the road. It’s our hunch, our intuition, and it informs almost everything we do.

System 2 (thinking slow) is altogether more analytical, deliberate and rational; it is the mode that we employ to reason about the world. It’s the system we use to consciously work out a maths sum or fill out a tax return and it’s usually rather labour intensive. We like to think that System 2 runs the show, but it is, by its very nature, a ‘lazy’ system that has to cherry pick what it will and won’t attend to – we can’t consciously analyse everything all the time. In fact, it’s this slow, controlled system that tends to kick in when our automatic processes get interrupted. This can happen when experiencing a strong visceral state (someone steals your wallet and you’re furious), when we encounter an unexpected event (your mother-in-law drops by unannounced and you have to put on a smile) or when we come up against an explicit challenge (solving a cryptic crossword in the Sunday paper).

When it comes to decision-making, System 1 will continually generate feelings, intuitions and intentions, which, if endorsed by System 2, will turn into beliefs and actions. This interplay works well until we’re asked to respond to something that violates our normal understanding of the world (a flying pig) or requires greater cognitive attention (the end-of-year report). At this point, it’s System 2 that steps in, helping us to weigh up the facts (pigs can’t fly, it must be an illusion) and respond appropriately (laugh it off).

Although we’d like to think we’re rational, in reality, it’s our fast, automatic system that’s in charge. System 1 relies on heuristics (cognitive rules of thumb) to reduce the complexity of incoming information and speed up our decision-making which, most of the time, works just fine. For instance, employing the principle ‘You get what you pay for’ tends to be useful when having to make decisions in general, but in the absence of System 2’s more rational approach, our automatic processes can sometimes fall prey to biases.

Take the Rational Choice Theory of economics.¹¹ This states that people are rational agents that make logical decisions, by meticulously weighing up all the information, risks and probabilities inherent in a given situation. In real life, this would mean that strategies like decoy pricing should have zero effect on the financial decisions we make, since numbers are absolute. Yet research shows that the context or framing of a situation not only influences our perception of the facts, it also significantly impacts the decisions we go on to make.

For instance, imagine that your friend asks you to go out and buy her some minced beef to make spaghetti bolognese. You go to the butcher’s and you see two options: ‘75 per cent lean’ versus ‘25 per cent fat’. The astute among you will have noticed that mathematically both choices are identical. However, research shows that we’re significantly more likely to buy the ‘75 per cent lean’ option, simply because of our positive association with ‘leanness’.¹² So what’s happening?

Well, information is never free from the context in which it is delivered or received, and along with our associations, there are many ways in which this context can skew our decisions. For example, we tend to pay more attention to information which comes easily to mind (the availability heuristic), and we often give greater weight to memories that are personally relevant, or emotionally vivid – which is why stories can be so powerful. We also tend to seek out information that enhances our self-esteem (self-serving bias) and reinforces our existing world view (confirmation bias), all of which can heavily influence both the marketing messages we respond to, and the subsequent purchase decisions we make.

Whether we like it or not, the reality is that our decisions are influenced by a whole host of factors, many of which lay beyond our conscious awareness and control. This means of course, that if we can understand how and why these principles work, we can also use them online to help shape the behaviours of others.