Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

In reply to McLaughlin

In reply to McLaughlin Adv in Health Sci Educ (2014) 19:433–434 DOI 10.1007/s10459-014-9520-x RESPONSE Timothy J. Wood Received: 8 April 2014 / Accepted: 26 May 2014 / Published online: 5 June 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 The commentary by Dr. Kevin McLaughlin is generally positive and also provides the reader with some insight into a number of dual code models and examples of how these models have been applied to both impression formation and other tasks related to cognition and medicine. As noted in the commentary, I tried to keep my review balanced in terms of the positives and negatives of the different aspects of dual code theory (i.e. System 1 and System 2) as they are applied to first impressions and rater-based assessments. There is, however, one tangential issue. The commentary at one point describes how System 1 and System 2 processes are coordinated and suggests that we could make decisions solely on one or the other of these processes. This statement is perhaps a bit simplistic and worth commenting on to clarify for readers. With regards to tasks people do in assessment, clinical reasoning or medicine in general, it is common to associate specific tasks as being solely a System http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Advances in Health Sciences Education Springer Journals

In reply to McLaughlin

Wood, Timothy
Advances in Health Sciences Education , Volume 19 (3) – Jun 5, 2014
Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/in-reply-to-mclaughlin-2rEeAUwoLy

References (2)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 by Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
Subject
Education; Medical Education
ISSN
1382-4996
eISSN
1573-1677
DOI
10.1007/s10459-014-9520-x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Adv in Health Sci Educ (2014) 19:433–434 DOI 10.1007/s10459-014-9520-x RESPONSE Timothy J. Wood Received: 8 April 2014 / Accepted: 26 May 2014 / Published online: 5 June 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 The commentary by Dr. Kevin McLaughlin is generally positive and also provides the reader with some insight into a number of dual code models and examples of how these models have been applied to both impression formation and other tasks related to cognition and medicine. As noted in the commentary, I tried to keep my review balanced in terms of the positives and negatives of the different aspects of dual code theory (i.e. System 1 and System 2) as they are applied to first impressions and rater-based assessments. There is, however, one tangential issue. The commentary at one point describes how System 1 and System 2 processes are coordinated and suggests that we could make decisions solely on one or the other of these processes. This statement is perhaps a bit simplistic and worth commenting on to clarify for readers. With regards to tasks people do in assessment, clinical reasoning or medicine in general, it is common to associate specific tasks as being solely a System

Journal

Advances in Health Sciences Education – Springer Journals

Published: Jun 5, 2014

There are no references for this article.