Bilişsel cimrilik kavramına yönelik sistematik bir inceleme

Abstract

Bu sistematik derleme çalışmasında, bilişsel cimrilik (cognitive miser) eğilimini etkileyen bilişsel işlevler incelenmiştir. Bilişsel cimrilik, bireylerin zihinsel kaynaklarını korumak amacıyla analitik ve derinlemesine düşünme yerine sezgisel ve otomatik süreçlere yönelme eğilimi olarak tanımlanmaktadır. İkili süreç teorilerine dayanan bu kavram, analitik düşünme, karar verme, problem çözme ve eleştirel düşünme gibi yüksek düzey bilişsel işlevlerin zayıflamasıyla ilişkilendirilmektedir. “Cognitive miser” ve “cognitive miserliness” anahtar kelimeleri kullanılarak 2016–2025 yılları arasında yayımlanan çalışmalar taranmış ve belirlenen ölçütler doğrultusunda beş çalışma incelenmiştir. Bulgular, bilişsel cimriliğe yatkın bireylerin genellikle bilişsel çaba gerektiren görevlerden kaçındığını, sezgisel yargılara yöneldiğini ve karmaşık problem çözme süreçlerinde düşük performans gösterdiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ego tükenmesi, teknoloji kullanımı ve çevresel ipuçları gibi faktörlerin bilişsel cimrilik eğilimini etkilediği görülmektedir. Sezgisel stratejiler kısa vadede verimlilik sağlasa da uzun vadede derinlemesine öğrenme ve doğru karar vermeyi olumsuz etkileyebilmektedir. Bu bağlamda bilişsel cimrilik, bireylerin hem içsel bilişsel kaynakları hem de çevresel koşullara bağlı olarak şekillenen çok boyutlu bir olgudur. Çalışma, ileride yapılacak kültürler arası ve disiplinler arası araştırmalar için önerilerde bulunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Bilişsel Cimrilik
• Bilişsel İşlevler
• İkili Süreç Teorisi
• Dikkat
• Karar Verme

A systematic review on the concept of cognitive miserliness

Abstract

In this systematic review study, the cognitive miser tendency and the cognitive functions affecting it were examined. Cognitive miserliness is defined as the tendency of individuals to rely on intuitive and automatic processes rather than analytical and in-depth thinking in order to preserve their mental resources. Based on dual- process theories, this concept is associated with the weakening of higher-order cognitive functions such as analytical thinking, decision-making, problem-solving, and critical thinking. Studies published between 2016 and 2025 were reviewed using the keywords “cognitive miser” and “cognitive miserliness,” and five studies were analyzed according to the determined criteria. The findings reveal that individuals prone to cognitive miserliness generally avoid tasks requiring cognitive effort, rely on intuitive judgments, and demonstrate low performance in complex problem-solving processes. Factors such as ego depletion, technology use, and environmental cues are seen to influence the tendency toward cognitive miserliness. Although intuitive strategies provide efficiency in the short term, they may negatively affect deep learning and accurate decision-making in the long term. In this context, cognitive miserliness is a multidimensional phenomenon shaped by both individuals’ internal cognitive resources and environmental conditions. The study offers recommendations for future cross-cultural and interdisciplinary research.

Keywords

• Cognitive Miser
• Cognitive Functions
• Dual-Process Theory
• Attention
• Decision Making

References

1. Ardıç, E., & Altun, A. (2017). Dijital çağın öğreneni. International Journal of New Approaches in Social Studies, 1(1), 12-30.
2. Baranes, A. F., Oudeyer, P. Y., & Gottlieb, J. (2014). The effects of task difficulty, novelty, and the size of the search space on intrinsically motivated exploration. Frontiers in neuroscience, 8, 1-9.
3. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British journal of educational technology, 39(5), 775-786.
4. Czerlinski, J., Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1999). How good are simple heuristics? Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 97-118) içinde. Oxford University Press.
5. Demir, M. H & Gümüşoğlu Ş. (1998). Yönetsel karar verme. MESS Yayınları.
6. Di Pomponio, I., Cersosimo, M., Serra, G., & Pedon, A. (2016, October). Use of technology and analytical thinking in university students: the positive impact of the psycho- pedagogical model of the International Telematic University Uninettuno (UTIU). The Online, Open and Flexible Higher Education Conference (pp. 831).
7. Dunn, T. L., & Risko, E. F. (2019). Understanding the cognitive miser: Cue-utilization in effort-based decision making. Acta Psychologica, 198, Article 102863.
8. Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2012). An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments. Metacognition and Learning, 7, 219-244.

9. Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2001). Critical thinking: Thinking to some purpose. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(1), 40.
10. Embrey, J. R., Donkin, C., & Newell, B. (2022). Does Mental Effort Avoidance Depend on the ‘Type of Effort’?. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 44, No. 44).
11. Epstein S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. The American psychologist, 49(8), 709–724.
12. Evans, J. S. B. T. (1989). Bias in human reasoning: Causes and consequences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Evans J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual review of psychology, 59, 255–278.
14. Evans, J. S. B.T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate. Perspectives on psychological science: a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241.
15. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
16. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42.
17. Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999). Fast and frugal heuristics: The adaptive toolbox. In Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 3-34). Oxford University Press.
18. Hockey, R. (2013). The psychology of fatigue: Work, effort and control. Cambridge University Press.
19. Inzlicht, M., & Berkman, E. (2015). Six questions for the resource model of control (and some answers). Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(10), 511-524.
20. Inzlicht, M., Shenhav, A., & Olivola, C. Y. (2018). The effort paradox: Effort is both costly and valued. Trends in cognitive sciences, 22(4), 337-349.
21. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 349-366.
22. Kaeppel, K. (2021). The influence of collaborative argument mapping on college students’ critical thinking about contentious arguments. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40, 19.
23. Kahneman, D. (2011). Fast and slow thinking. Allen Lane and Penguin Books.
24. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81). Cambridge University Press.
25. Kiely, K. M. (2014). Cognitive Function. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research, 974-978.
26. Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Keele University, UK, 1-66.
27. Kruglanski, A. W., Webster, D. M., & Klem, A. (1993). Motivated resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information. Journal of personality and social psychology, 65(5), 861-876.
28. Kurzban, R., Duckworth, A., Kable, J. W., & Myers, J. (2013). An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance. Behavioral and brain sciences, 36(6), 661-679.
29. Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., & Ford, R. L. (1997). On regulation of recollection: The intentional forgetting of stereotypical memories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(4), 709-719.
30. Masicampo, E. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2008). Toward a physiology of dual-process reasoning and judgment: Lemonade, willpower, and expensive rule-based analysis. Psychologicalcscience, 19(3), 255-260.
31. Messick, S. (1984). The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational practice. Educational psychologist, 19(2), 59-74.
32. Ozay, S., & Mustafa, S. N. (2022). İklim krizine Türk medyası çerçevesinden bakmak. İnsan ve İnsan, 9(33), 97-112.
33. Özdemir, S. (2019). Bir kamu politikası aracı olarak davranışsal içgörü. Türkiye İletişim Araştırmaları Dergisi, (34), 247-274.
34. Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Opening Universities in a Digital Era. New England Journal of Higher Education, 23(1), 22-24.
35. Pocheptsova, A., Amir, O., Dhar, R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Deciding without resources: Resource depletion and choice in context. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 344-355.
36. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently?. On the horizon, 9(6), 1-6.
37. Reber, A. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(6), 855–863.
38. Russo, J. E., & Dosher, B. A. (1983), Strategies for multiattribute binary choice. Journal of experimental psychology: learning, memory, and cognition, 9(4), 676.
39. Schafersman, S. D. (1991). An Introduction to critical thinking. https://www.smartcollegeplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Critical- Thinking.pdf
40. Shenhav, A., Musslick, S., Lieder, F., Kool, W., Griffiths, T. L., Cohen, J. D., & Botvinick, M. M. (2017). Toward a rational and mechanistic account of mental effort. Annual review of neuroscience, 40(1), 99-124.
41. Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Why humans are (sometimes) less rational than other animals: Cognitive complexity and the axioms of rational choice. Thinking & Reasoning, 19(1), 1-26.
42. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 672-695.
43. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
44. Tekin, B. (2018). Bilişsel önyargı ve hevristik bağlamında finansın insani boyutu olarak “Davranışsal Finans”: Bir literatür incelemesi ve derleme çalışması. Uluslararası İnsan Çalışmaları Dergisi, 1(2), 131-156.
45. Tiryaki, Ş. (2000). Spor Psikolojisi: Kavramlar, Kuramlar ve Uygulama. Eylül Kitabevi ve Yayınevi.
46. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
47. Vonasch, A. (2016). Cognitive miserliness preserves the self-regulatory resource. The Florida State University.
48. Zadnik, M. G., & Loss. R. D. (1995). Developing numerical problem-solving skills through estimations of quantities in familiar contexts. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 41 (1), 15–19.