Title: Chapter 09
Course: Exploring Psychology and Christian Faith Test Bank

Q: How do representations allow us to make meaning of the world?

Q: How is responsible limited agency seen in both System 1 and System 2 thinking? In your answer, be sure to define both types of thinking.

Q: Explain causal stereotyping and indicate how one person’s causal stereotyping of another can impact relationality and agency.

Q: How can negative stereotyping limit the expression of the image of God in others?

Q: For Christians who wish to obey God, what do Moes and Tellinghuisen suggest to be the roles of Scripture and the Holy Spirit in System 2 thinking?

Q: People are creative as God has been creative
- through asserting their own will over creation.
- by fulfilling their roles of bearing God’s image in creation.
- through allowing God’s creation to remain untouched by human sin.
- by creating in the same way that God created.
A: by fulfilling their roles of bearing God’s image in creation.

Q: Agency is possible in System 1 thinking because
- experience can change the responses of System 1.
- it relies primarily on unconscious processing.
- it acts so quickly and efficiently.
- System 2 uses too much effort to ever show free will.
A: experience can change the responses of System 1.

Q: Social categorization can be seen as a “neutral” activity because
- causal stereotypes are neutral.
- categorizing allows us to efficiently interact with others and the environment.
- people as a whole are neutral in relation to God.
- it is seldom used, so it is unlikely to impact anyone.
A: categorizing allows us to efficiently interact with others and the environment.

Q: Moes and Tellinghuisen state that the overarching stereotype of humans found in Christianity and evident in the work of Greg Boyle is that
- because people are sinners, we should expect all of their behaviors to be sinful.
- because of sin, people are no better than the worst thing they have ever done.
- all persons are God’s creation, made in his image.
- when people have accepted Christ as their savior, sinful behavior ceases.
A: all persons are God’s creation, made in his image.

Q: Moes and Tellinghuisen suggest that one way to overcome the confirmation bias regarding one’s lifestyle choices would be to ask,
- “How can I make others live the way that I do?”
- “Who else lives in the way that I do?”
- “What might be wrong about how I am living?”
- “In what ways is my lifestyle successful?”
A: “What might be wrong about how I am living?”

Q: Moes and Tellinghuisen state that what counts as a “good” decision in research on how people make a decision is one that
- helps as many people as possible.
- earns the highest reward (money or goods) possible for the person making the decision.
- objective observers would judge to be “good.”
- best fits whatever the decision maker’s own criteria are for a “good” decision.
A: best fits whatever the decision maker’s own criteria are for a “good” decision.

Q: According to the criteria used in research on decision making, an irrational decision is one in which the decision maker
- makes a decision that goes against his or her own values or criteria.
- feels conflict over what is right or wrong to do when he or she ponders the decision.
- bases his or her decision on his or her own values or criteria rather than those held by the majority of people.
- tries to imagine how his or her life will be impacted by the consequences of his or her decision.
A: makes a decision that goes against his or her own values or criteria.

Q: Moes and Tellinghuisen write that the freedom to be creative—our creative agency—carries significant responsibility because
- human behaviors tend to only destroy God’s good creation.
- creativity is not limited like other human abilities are.
- creativity operates using System 1 resources.
- people can work toward God’s desires or against his will.
A: people can work toward God’s desires or against his will.

Q: Moes and Tellinghuisen state that human reasoning and problem solving tend to be
- time-consuming but accurate.
- quick but largely inaccurate.
- efficient and accurate.
- time-consuming and often wrong.
A: efficient and accurate.

Q: System 1 thinking is
- fast, efficient, and intuitive.
- slow and requires effort and reasoning.
- easily monitored.
- not impulsive.
A: fast, efficient, and intuitive.

Q: System 2 thinking is
- fast, efficient, and intuitive.
- slow and requires effort and reasoning.
- most often used to solve easy problems.
- reliant on past experiences and knowledge to make instantaneous judgments.
A: slow and requires effort and reasoning.

Q: In terms of the themes of Moes and Tellinghuisen’s book, System 1 thinking is best described as
- a quick meaning-maker that has no agency.
- strongly involving feelings of agency and choice.
- the foundation of being relational persons.
- the aspect of persons most in need of redemption.
A: a quick meaning-maker that has no agency.

Q: People are likely to judge $2.99 as significantly less expensive than $3.00 because
- people tend to overestimate the worth of a single cent.
- an intuitive judgment is made comparing 2 with 3.
- System 2 thinking overrides System 1 judgments.
- people are generally bad at math.
A: an intuitive judgment is made comparing 2 with 3.

Q: Which of the following statements best characterizes how meaning-making and beliefs can result from System 1 and System 2 thinking?
- System 1 conclusions are typically adopted as beliefs by System 2 unless System 1 judgments do not work.
- System 2 usually reevaluates System 1 conclusions.
- System 2 easily overrides beliefs and meaning-making resulting from System 1 thinking.
- System 1 forms beliefs, but System 2 brings about meaning-making.
A: System 1 conclusions are typically adopted as beliefs by System 2 unless System 1 judgments do not work.

Q: By relying on System 1 thinking,
- we decrease our ability to make meaning.
- we have little ability to relate to others.
- we reduce the limits of our agency.
- we give up some of our agency.
A: we give up some of our agency.