Two Poles of Thought: Intuitive Versus Reflective Judgment

In my last post on Open-Mindedness and Skepticism in Critical Thinking, I made the point that individuals can be both sceptical and open-minded at the same time. For example, open-mindedness is about being open to changing your mind in light of new evidence. It’s about detaching from your beliefs and focusing on unbiased thinking void of self-interest. It’s about being open to constructive criticism and new ideas. People who are sceptical do all of this as well—they challenge ideas (including their own) and they withhold judgment until sufficient evidence is provided­—they are open to all possibilities until sufficient evidence is presented. The dispositions go hand-in-hand; they are neither in opposition, nor are they necessarily on a continuum. In considering the relationship between the two dispositions, another concept came to mind that does rest on a continuum and is also pertinent to critical thinking: Cognitive Continuum Theory (Hammond, 1981)—the relationship between reflective and intuitive judgment.

In order to understand Cognitive Continuum Theory, we must first define what we mean by reflective judgment (as previously discussed in this blog) and intuitive judgment (also previously discussed in this blog). Reflective judgment is an important aspect of critical thinking that refers to an epistemological understanding of the nature, limits, and certainty of knowing and how this can affect how people defend their judgments and reasoning in context; as well as an individual’s acknowledgement that their views might be falsified by additional evidence obtained at a later time (King & Kitchener, 1994). Simply, through reflective judgment, you "take a step back" in the decision-making process, taking your time to truly consider a decision. On the other hand, intuitive judgment refers to automatic cognitive processing which generally lacks effort, intention, awareness or voluntary control—usually experienced as perceptions or feelings (Kahneman, 2011; Lieberman, 2003); also, the ‘the absence of analysis’ (Hamm, 1988). Many refer to intuitive judgment as 'going with your gut'.

According to Cognitive Continuum Theory, the thought processes necessary to make judgments are often considered as poles on a continuum (e.g. Cader, Campbell, & Watson, 2005), anchored by intuitive judgment and reflective judgment. These two modes of thought are considered as existing on a continuum given that thinking is never purely reflective, nor is it completely intuitive. Instead, it lies somewhere in between these realms of thought. The ‘mixture’ of the two—often described in the field as quasi-rationality (Cader, Campbell, & Watson, 2005; Dunwoody et al., 2000) and, more colloquially, as ‘common sense’ (Dunwoody et al., 2000; Hammond, 1996), is an adaptive form of thought, given that an individual may on some occasions reflect more on their judgments than utilise intuition or vice versa. The proportions of reflective and intuitive thought used is dictated by one's expertise or pre-existing knowledge (which are distinct) regarding the nature of the situation or task - specifically, the complexity, ambiguity and presentation of the situation/task structure and its content (Hamm, 1988).

The ability to adapt in this manner is both practical and important because we face numerous situations requiring judgment each day, some of which require very little reflection, some which require deeper, more reflective consideration and some which require a "delicate balance" of both (Langley, 1995). Being able to decipher these types of situations from one another is a critical thinking skill in itself! According to Hammond (1996), the concept of quasi-rationality has many advantages—perhaps explaining why the notion of common sense has endured, even without adequate description!