IntroductionOne of the most influential theories of cognition of the last century is that proposed by William James (1890) in which he suggested that reasoning in humans is divided into two distinct processing systems. The first is fast, simple, intuitive and requires little cognitive capacity (known as System 1 processes) while the other is slow, effortful, deliberate and requires the use of cognitive resources (System 2 processes) (Alter, Oppenheimer, Eyre & Epley, 2007; Evidence suggests that we rely on our System 2 processing only after it has been activated by certain cues and makes sense in the context of a situation (Reisberg, 2013 p. 414). that judgments based on heuristics (System 1) are used when there are time constraints, while System 2 judgments are more likely if more attention can be paid to the judgment made (Reisberg, 2013 p. 414). judgment errors can be made even when one is focused and alert and time constraints can contribute to errors based on heuristics, people are still able to make correct hypotheses even when under pressure (Reisberg, 2013 p. 414). So what does all this mean and why should it matter? The following articles discuss a number of important aspects of dual process theory and how it impacts how we make decisions. The first by Alter, Oppenheimer, Epley and Eyre (2007) examines metacognitive difficulty as an activator of analytical reasoning (System 2), the second by Topolinksi and Strack (2010) examines how the effects of fluency can be prevented by blocking sources of fluency . variation and finally the article by Morisanyi and Handley (2011) discusses the interaction between System 1 and System 2 processes by looking at how people evaluate syllogisms and j...... half of the article .... .. also noted that mood was not related to performance and even when included as a covariate it indicated that mood had no impact on fluency. This therefore suggests that the better performance exhibited in the dysfluent condition cannot be explained by incidental mood. So what does this study show in our understanding of dual process models? More importantly, this study suggests a possible explanation for some inconsistencies within the fluency literature (see Monin, 2003; Guttentag & Dunn, 2003; for contradictory views on disfluency and familiarity), as well as showing how fluency processing can have an indirect influence on judgment by serving as a cue to engage in more analytical thinking. Prevention of false fame: avoiding fluency effects without judgment correction Following the same line as Alter et al. (2007) Study by Topolinski and Strack (2010).