Intuitive vs. Analytical Thinking: Four Theoretical Frameworks

Research in mathematics education often consists of interpreting students’ performance on mathematical tasks, in particular their misconceptions, or nonnormative responses. In such situations it is natural to compare students’ intuitive vs. analytical ways of thinking, bearing in mind that these terms need to be specified more precisely. In this paper, data on one such task is used to compare four theoretical frameworks for interpreting the same data, all dealing in some way with the intuitive/analytical distinction. The first two frameworks come from research in mathematics education, the third from cognitive psychology, and the fourth from evolutionary psychology. The insights gained by the various frameworks are not meant to be seen as conflicting; rather, they illuminate the same phenomenon from different perspectives, and they look for explanatory mechanisms on different levels.