Toward a Physiology of Dual-Process Reasoning and Judgment: Lemonade, Willpower, and Expensive Rule-Based Analysis

Masicampo, E. J.; Baumeister, Roy F.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02077.x

Cited by 255 publications

(195 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

176

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings are attributed to the depletion of glucose by both tasks, resulting in a shortage of resources to complete both of them efficiently (see e.g. Gaillot et al, 2007;Masicampo and Baumeister, 2008). This echoes our theory and exemplifies the mechanism we outline.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 68%

“…Figure 3 represents the expected utility of CES as a function of r under four different mechanisms: (i) First-best (Full Information), (ii) Second-best (Mechanism M), (iii) Priority to i, and (iv) Priority to 0. 21 19 This comparative statics is consistent with experiments in which subjects have to exercise self control and make effortful choices after drinking lemonade containing either glucose or a substitute (Masicampo and Baumeister (2008)). Performance was significantly higher for subjects who drank glucose suggesting the positive effect of extra resources in the bloodstream.…”

Section: Proposition 2 (Comparative Statics)supporting

confidence: 62%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Resource Allocation in the Brain

Alonso

Brocas

Carrillo

2013

The Review of Economic Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When an individual performs several tasks simultaneously, processing resources must be allocated to different brain systems to produce energy for neurons to fire. Following the evidence from neuroscience, we model the brain as an organization in which a coordinator allocates limited resources to the brain systems responsible for the different tasks. Systems are privately informed about the amount of resources necessary to perform their task and compete to obtain the resources. The coordinator arbitrates the demands while satisfying the resource constraint. We show that the optimal mechanism is to impose to each system with privately known needs a cap in resources that depends negatively on the amount of resources requested by the other system. This allocation can be implemented using a biologically plausible mechanism. Finally, we provide some implications of our theory: (i) performance is inversely related to the difficulty of the task and can be flawless for sufficiently simple tasks, (ii) the dynamic allocation rule exhibits inertia (current allocations are increasing in past needs), and (iii) different cognitive tasks are performed by different systems only if the tasks are sufficiently important.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 68%

Section: Proposition 2 (Comparative Statics)supporting

confidence: 62%

Resource Allocation in the Brain

Alonso

Brocas

Carrillo

2013

The Review of Economic Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Participants in the nondepletion condition were not given specific instructions about the words. This depletion task has been used successfully in past research to deplete self-regulatory resources (e.g., DeWall, Baumeister, Mead, & Vohs, 2011;Masicampo & Baumeister, 2008). Following the depletion manipulation, participants completed the Brief Mood Introspection Scale (BMIS; Mayer & Gaschke, 1988) to provide a measure of mood and arousal.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ego Depletion Decreases Trust in Economic Decision Making

Ainsworth¹,

Baumeister²,

Ariely³

et al. 2012

PsycEXTRA Dataset

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments tested the effects of ego depletion on economic decision making. Participants completed a task either requiring self-control or not. Then participants learned about the trust game, in which senders are given an initial allocation of $10 to split between themselves and another person, the receiver. The receiver receives triple the amount given and can send any, all, or none of the tripled money back to the sender. Participants were assigned the role of the sender and decided how to split the initial allocation. Giving less money, and therefore not trusting the receiver, is the safe, less risky response. Participants who had exerted self-control and were depleted gave the receiver less money than those in the non-depletion condition (Experiment 1). This effect was replicated and moderated in two additional experiments. Depletion again led to lower amounts given (less trust), but primarily among participants who were told they would never meet the receiver (Experiment 2) or who were given no information about how similar they were to the receiver (Experiment 3). Amounts given did not differ for depleted and non-depleted participants who either expected to meet the receiver (Experiment 2) or were led to believe that they were very similar to the receiver (Experiment 3). Decreased trust among depleted participants was strongest among neurotics. These results imply that self-control facilitates behavioral trust, especially when no other cues signal decreased social risk in trusting, such as if an actual or possible relationship with the receiver were suggested.

show abstract

“…Cognitive control manipulation consisted of an overriding task (Schmeichel, 2007) shown to impair cognitive control (Masicampo & Baumeister, 2008). Participants wrote an essay about their daily life and were asked to avoid using either A and N (cognitive control impaired) or X and Y (cognitive control not impaired).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%