Research Paper on Information Gathering and Processing

Fast Brain/Slow Brain Concept Presented By Kahneman

Given a situation that needs a decision to be made, there are equal chances that both erratic and correct results will be arrived at even when the inputs are the same. The reason behind that is the engagement of different systems in making a decision. According to Kahneman (2011), a human brain has two contrasting systems of forming thoughts; system 1 and 2. In system 1, which is characterized by fast, automatic, emotional, frequent, unconscious and stereotypic thinking, a decision is made based on gut reaction or intuition. Under this system, a decision is made so quickly that there is no effort from the person that goes into it. It is like the individual making the decision lacks control.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

System 1 works based on a coherent pattern of activated ideas already stored in the associative memory. For example, when one is asked 2+2, he or she automatically and quickly answer 4 because of associative memory in the system one that operates from a coherent pattern already established to provide fast thinking. This system mostly prompts decision making based on first impressions which are the reason that some people jump to conclusions without taking an analytical approach to see more than what meets the eye (Sternberg & Zhang, 2014). In fact, the biggest problem with system 1 is attempting to create a coherent and plausible explanation for what is happening by heavily relying on associative memory, assumptions, and pattern-matching even if that explanation is based on inaccurate information. Thus, system 1 is based on heuristics and biases where instead of creating new patterns for every new experience encountered, an individual tends to rely on existing patterns (Kahneman & Egan, 2011). As such, there is a hasty to a conclusion based on the thought that "what you see is all there is" (WYSIATI). An individual jumps to make a conclusion without considering absent information, thus buying into conspiracy stories. WYSIATI encourages overconfidence in intuitions and flawed predictions because of the use of limited evidence that confirms the existing perspective and ignores that which may run contrary to the coherent story.

System 2, on the other hand, is characterized by slow, infrequent, effortful, calculating, logical and conscious thinking whereby a decision is arrived at through an analytical process (Kahneman, 2011). A more complex and mentally draining thinking is involved in making a decision in system 2. Agency and concentration of the decision maker are required to process the thoughts. System 2 is a conscious self of an individual that makes choices, decisions, and has established beliefs and reasons. It is by engaging system 2 that an individual can monitor behavior in some circumstances (Kahneman, 2011). Overall, system 2 incorporates reflection, analysis and problem-solving in decision making and is the most reliable one.

Positivity Ratio Concept Presented By Fredrickson

Whether one is positive or negative all the time, it affects the mind. It affects how the brain works and how an individual grows (Frederickson, 2013). But then what proportion of positivity to negativity should one allow for optimum development? According to Frederickson (2009), one should aim for a positivity ratio of at least 3:1. This is to say that for every negative experience one endures, there should be three heartfelt positive emotional experiences that regenerate the spirit and positively influence the mind. Positivity, in this case, refers to the whole range of the positive emotions from love to appreciation, amusement to joy, or hope to gratitude.

Positivity is a powerful emotion that either makes the mind grow or retard or even degenerate. Besides allowing the mind to trade bad thoughts for good ones, positivity changes the boundaries or scope of the mind. It expands the span of possibilities that one can see (Frederickson, 2009). However, this does not mean that one needs to be positive all the time. In fact, that is impossible for a thinking human being who has to experience negativities as well as positivity in a matter of minutes (Lopez, Pedrotti & Snyder, 2018). It means that one needs to track thoughts to ensure that at least there are thrice positive thoughts after a negative one. Achieving that ratio means that an individual is flourishing, whereas failure would signal to languish (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005). At least 3 to 1 positive emotion have a far-reaching positive effect on an individual. It is equivalent to sunlight for a flower. A flower will open when there is sunlight. Similarly, the mind opens and closes with the presence and absence of mind positive emotions (Frederickson, 2013). This is because positive emotions broaden the awareness by increasing the periphery or mind boundaries allowing one to take in more information from the context (Frederickson, 2013). So when one accumulates positive emotions, he or she becomes more resilient, more social connections, and eventually establish a trajectory of growth (Frederickson, 2013). Positive emotions broaden the boundaries of attention and thought-action repertoires that allow people to be more resilient (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005). Therefore, by aiming at 3:1 positivity one is equally targeting a situation of high mental resilience, improved thought action, and overall flourishing.

The Readiness Concept Presented By ProchaskaIncreased healthcare costs, chronic diseases and premature deaths all result from unhealthy behaviors (Prochaska, Wright & Velicer, 2008). It means that if there can be a way to reduce health behavior risks, then such occurrences can be avoided or health would be promoted. On realizing this need, Prochaska (2001) established and promoted the use of the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) which can be used to encourage people to change towards the elimination of risk behaviors. The main aim was to create a model for researchers, practitioners, and theorists that would guide in evaluating progress in a population.

TTM employs Stages of Change (SOC) as a framework for organizing subjects. Individuals are classified into one of the five stages depending on their readiness to change. The stages are pre-contemplation (PC), contemplation (C), preparation (PR), action (A), and maintenance (M) (Archer, Langhinrichsen-Rohling & Blejwas, 2018). One is classified as a pre-contemplator if he or she is not ready to change within the next six months. Such individuals are not aware that their behaviors are problematic which explains why they are not ready to embrace change (Archer et al., 2018). Those willing to change in the next six months are categorized as contemplators or are said to be in the contemplation stage. Contemplation stage is where individuals are aware of their problematic behavior and are beginning to evaluate the pros and cons of their continued actions (Archer et al., 2018). Those persons who are planning to change in the next 30 days are placed at the preparation stage. Preparation stage is where individuals have already begun taking small steps aimed at changing their problematic behaviors (Archer et al., 2018). Individuals in action and maintenance stages have achieved the criterion, for example, zero smoking. At action stage, an individual has made overt modifications to the problem behavior which has yielded new healthy behaviors, and in the maintenance stage, they are able to sustain these new behaviors for at least six months with a focus on preventing relapse (Archer et al., 2018).

How First Brain/Slow Brain, Positivity Ratio, and Readiness Concepts Influence the Process of Creating and Testing Hypotheses and Drawing Conclusions

First Brain/Slow Brain

System 1 thinking is likely to affect the entire process of creating, testing hypothesis and drawing conclusions. A hypothesis is created based on what a researcher already knows and is guessing will happen (Nardi, 2018). This nature of hypothesis creation opens room for predictions based on associative memory, assumptions, and pattern-matching which may be flawed. Likewise, the testing hypothesis is done by doing an experiment (Nardi, 2018). Again, system 1 thinking is likely to creep in prompting the researcher to look for certain evidence that confirms what he or she was looking for. System 1 thinking can easily create room for bias and prejudice in the testing hypothesis. Finally, when drawing conclusions, there is a high likelihood that system 1 thinking shall prompt the researcher to jump to conclusions through WYSIATI. A researcher may make plausible conclusions, especially where the observations appear to beg causal explanation. However, if the system 2 thinking is engaged, the entire processes of creating, testing hypothesis and drawing conclusions can be analytical leading to correct results.

Positivity Ratio

Positivity ratio concept can play a role in research especially creating and testing hypothesis as well as drawing conclusions. A high positivity ratio opens up the mind and enhances resilience meaning that such a researcher is empowered to extract information from the context and come up with a good hypothesis. Open-mindedness creates a favorable environment for thought and analytical data analysis and drawing conclusions (Li, 2018). As such, a researcher exhibiting high positivity ratio is likely to approach a research question with an open mind which allows for undertaking the experiment from a wide spectrum thus leading to well-thought and deep conclusions.

Readiness Concept

The readiness concept provides a model to the researcher upon which to compare alternative theories as well as evaluating progress within a given theory (Prochaska et al., 2008). As such, the readiness concept can act as a good starting point for a researcher when creating hypothesis by comparing existing theories to make an educated guess. Also, testing the hypothesis can be guided by the previous theories, and while making conclusions, the researcher bridges the existing knowledge gap.

Preferred Concept

Fast brain/slow brain concept is the preferred model because it provides awareness to the researcher on the possible flaws that can be made in creating and testing hypothesis as well as drawing conclusions. This concept already warns the researcher of system 1 thinking and biases which can then prompt him or her to proceed with caution and ensure to engage system 2 thinking for analytical data gathering and processing.

Sample Theoretical Foundation

Research topic: Is there a relationship between biased reasoning and distressing delusional beliefs in psychotic individuals?

People with psychosis tend to utilize fewer data to arrive at decisions. This tendency plays a major role in delusion formation and persistence. A delusional conclusion is usually drawn based on limited evidence which does not go through a thorough consideration of alternatives or review of deeper evidence (Garety & Freeman, 2013). According to Dudley, Taylor, Wickham, and Hutton (2015), individuals with psychosis and delusions use probabilistic reasoning tasks commonly known as "jump-to-conclusions" to make decisions. McLean, Mattiske, and Balzan (2017) further established that individuals with schizophrenia more likely exhibit "jump-to-conclusion" problem than non-schizophrenic ones. In summary, studies have shown that there exists a relationship between biased reasoning or "jump-to-conclusion" and psychosis.

Psychotic individuals tend to employ the system 1 thinking which is bound to use of limited evidence to jump to conclusions. These individuals use heuristics and biases instead of creating new patterns for every new experience encountered. As a result, they make plausible explanations for observations. This study, therefore, will employ the fast brain/...