Skip to main content

Narrative and Intuitive Thinking as a Cycle

Did you know that you can subscribe to the Two Minds Blog?
Just click on the button with 3 horizontal bars at the upper right, enter your email address, and click the "get email notifications" button. Then you will get an email whenever a new blog entry is posted. You can also copy this address https://twomindstheory.blogspot.com, and post it into your favorite news reader program -- anything that accepts an RSS feed.


I’m excited to announce the publication of a major advance in Two Minds Theory! After the 2018 publication of TMT, I struggled to explain how the narrative system might have any effect at all on behavior. Based on many people’s experiences it seemed true that it did, but all my efforts to describe how led back to the old idea of the Narrative Mind as “executive control” and the goal of making people’s behavior more Narratively and less Intuitively controlled. This is similar to Kahneman’s idea that we would all be better off if only our “lazy” Narrative System would be more active.

Unfortunately, I also knew there was no room in TMT for any direct influence of the Narrative System on behavior — it’s a central point of the theory that narratives exert no direct control. You can also see this in your own experience: Imagine trying to catch a ball. If you take the time to think “now I am raising my arm; now I am opening my fingers; now I am wrapping them around ...” the result will be the ball hitting you in the face while you cogitate. The process of conscious thought is simply too slow to effectively oversee any of our everyday behaviors.

CU PhD student Laurel Messer solved my problem by suggesting that the relationship between the Intuitive and Narrative systems can be most clearly seen as a cycle. Her new cycle diagram, above, replaces the more linear diagram in our original TMT publication. Laurel’s version adds a time lag in between the Intuitive response and the Narrative one, which is a better representation than my original diagram showing the two processes in parallel.

In Laurel’s version of the TMT diagram, a stimulus leads to an immediate reaction at the Intuitive level of the mind, and this “gut reaction” then leads right away to behavior. The behavior in many cases then has consequences (recognizing of course that other consequences are delayed — eating a slice of cake now feels good, but maybe later I will regret it). By the time the Narrative mind gets to weigh in, all of these things are available data with which to construct a narrative — the stimulus itself, the subjective perception and emotional response, the behavior, and the consequence (at least the immediate one). The Narrative mind then has the role of commentator, observing the action and telling a story about what just happened.

In what way, then, does the Narrative mind affect behavior? TMT posits that narratives themselves can lead to different Intuitive-level responses. Laurel’s contribution was to clarify that the Narrative response comes too late to affect behavior THIS time around, but a new narrative can make a difference the NEXT time one finds oneself in a similar situation. 

The Narrative mind is still just one of many influences on the Intuitive mind, and much of Intuitive thinking remains a black box, so even with this new understanding we can’t expect people to suddenly become rational Narrative beings. But the new version of TMT might help to generate better understandings and methods or helping people change.

You can read Laurel’s full paper here. It also features an application of TMT to the self-management behaviors of adolescents with type 1 diabetes, a population that we haven’t discussed before. I’m excited by the many possible applications of this new way of representing Two Minds Theory. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Prototypes and Willingness: The Theory of Planned Behavior Revisited

  You may recall my blog post from last year on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) , titled "in praise of a failed model." My evaluation of this model was that it accurately describes the Narrative Mind, which does control intentions. But the ultimate goal of the TPB is to predict behavior, and the relationship between intentions and behavior is weak at best -- in fact, it is entirely attributable to the fact that when someone says they don't intend to do something, they probably won't do it. When they say they do intend to do it, their actual results are no better than chance, a result of the intention-behavior gap as described in Two Minds Theory.  The full TPB is shown in this diagram: Cognitive constructs like attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (i.e., self-efficacy) are Narrative-system phenomena, and they do indeed have relationships with each other and with intentions (which are also products of the Narrative Mind). Perceived behavi...
Post a Comment
Read more

Our Reactions to Robots Tell Us Something About Ourselves

Robot football players at a Valparaiso University College of Engineering event I have been thinking lately about robots, which creates an interesting asymmetry: They almost certainly have not been thinking about me. Nevertheless, I find that I often respond  to robots as though they have thoughts about me, or about their own personal goals, or about the world in which they exist. That tendency suggests an interesting aspect of human psychology, connected to our social minds . We are hard-wired to care what other people think about us, and we very easily extend that concern to robots. Here's a recent article about how the language-learning app Duolingo, which features an owl-shaped avatar (a kind of robot), uses "emotional blackmail" to keep application users engaged:  https://uxdesign.cc/20-days-of-emotional-blackmail-from-duolingo-4f566523e3c5  This bird-shaped bit of code tells users things like "you're scaring me!" and "I miss you" if they haven...
Post a Comment
Read more

Leventhal's Common-Sense Model and Two Minds Theory

Leventhal, Diefenbach, and Leventhal's (1992) "common sense model" of self-regulation. My 2018 paper describing Two Minds Theory (TMT) cites work by my colleague and coauthor Dr. Paula Meek, who conducted studies of patients experiencing the symptom of breathlessness due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD). Paula's research used a model by Howard and Elaine Leventhal (with Michael Diefenbach) that was an early iteration of the dual-process approach also used in TMT. She found that people who focused their attention on different aspects of the feeling of breathlessness then in turn had different interpretations of what that symptom meant for them, and that those interpretations changed their perception of the symptom's intensity. This example illustrates a back-and-forth between perceptions and thoughts, which is characteristic of Leventhal's model. Leventhal's dual-process model, sometimes called the "common sense model" of self-reg...
Post a Comment
Read more