Literature DB >> 27816844

Fast logic?: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory.

Bence Bago1, Wim De Neys2.   

Abstract

Influential dual process models of human thinking posit that reasoners typically produce a fast, intuitive heuristic (i.e., Type-1) response which might subsequently be overridden and corrected by slower, deliberative processing (i.e., Type-2). In this study we directly tested this time course assumption. We used a two response paradigm in which participants have to give an immediate answer and afterwards are allowed extra time before giving a final response. In four experiments we used a range of procedures (e.g., challenging response deadline, concurrent load) to knock out Type 2 processing and make sure that the initial response was intuitive in nature. Our key finding is that we frequently observe correct, logical responses as the first, immediate response. Response confidence and latency analyses indicate that these initial correct responses are given fast, with high confidence, and in the face of conflicting heuristic responses. Findings suggest that fast and automatic Type 1 processing also cues a correct logical response from the start. We sketch a revised dual process model in which the relative strength of different types of intuitions determines reasoning performance.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Conflict detection; Dual process theory; Reasoning

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27816844     DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cognition        ISSN: 0010-0277


  13 in total

Review 1.  Dual-process theory, conflict processing, and delusional belief.

Authors:  Michael V Bronstein; Gordon Pennycook; Jutta Joormann; Philip R Corlett; Tyrone D Cannon
Journal:  Clin Psychol Rev       Date:  2019-06-12

2.  The Bat-and-Ball Problem: Stronger evidence in support of a conscious error process.

Authors:  Jerome D Hoover; Alice F Healy
Journal:  Decision (Wash D C )       Date:  2019-03-14

3.  Think slow, then fast: Does repeated deliberation boost correct intuitive responding?

Authors:  Matthieu Raoelison; Marine Keime; Wim De Neys
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-02-11

4.  Time to Pay Attention? Information Search Explains Amplified Framing Effects Under Time Pressure.

Authors:  Ian D Roberts; Yi Yang Teoh; Cendri A Hutcherson
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2021-12-03

5.  Choice experiment selection of tourism destinations in a dual process theory framework: The role of decision style and potential to promote deliberation.

Authors:  Kreg Lindberg; Kathrin Stemmer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-08       Impact factor: 3.752

6.  How to activate intuitive and reflective thinking in behavior research? A comprehensive examination of experimental techniques.

Authors:  Ozan Isler; Onurcan Yilmaz
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2022-10-17

7.  Eye tracking and the cognitive reflection test: Evidence for intuitive correct responding and uncertain heuristic responding.

Authors:  Zoe A Purcell; Stephanie Howarth; Colin A Wastell; Andrew J Roberts; Naomi Sweller
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-08-13

8.  When fast logic meets slow belief: Evidence for a parallel-processing model of belief bias.

Authors:  Dries Trippas; Valerie A Thompson; Simon J Handley
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2017-05

9.  How certainty appraisal might improve both body dissatisfaction and body overestimation in anorexia nervosa: a case report.

Authors:  M Metral; M Mailliez
Journal:  J Eat Disord       Date:  2018-10-05

10.  Reasoning supports forgiving accidental harms.

Authors:  Indrajeet Patil; Bastien Trémolière
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-13       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.