Literature DB >> 28197896

Algebraic reasoning and bat-and-ball problem variants: Solving isomorphic algebra first facilitates problem solving later.

Jerome D Hoover1, Alice F Healy2.   

Abstract

The classic bat-and-ball problem is used widely to measure biased and correct reasoning in decision-making. University students overwhelmingly tend to provide the biased answer to this problem. To what extent might reasoners be led to modify their judgement, and, more specifically, is it possible to facilitate problem solution by prompting participants to consider the problem from an algebraic perspective? One hundred ninety-seven participants were recruited to investigate the effect of algebraic cueing as a debiasing strategy on variants of the bat-and-ball problem. Participants who were cued to consider the problem algebraically were significantly more likely to answer correctly relative to control participants. Most of this cueing effect was confined to a condition that required participants to solve isomorphic algebra equations corresponding to the structure of bat-and-ball question types. On a subsequent critical question with differing item and dollar amounts presented without a cue, participants were able to generalize the learned information to significantly reduce overall bias. Math anxiety was also found to be significantly related to bat-and-ball problem accuracy. These results suggest that, under specific conditions, algebraic reasoning is an effective debiasing strategy on bat-and-ball problem variants, and provide the first documented evidence for the influence of math anxiety on Cognitive Reflection Test performance.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Algebraic reasoning; Cognitive Reflection Test; Debiasing; Decision-making; Judgment; Math anxiety; Reasoning

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28197896     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-017-1241-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  13 in total

1.  Overcoming intuition: metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning.

Authors:  Adam L Alter; Daniel M Oppenheimer; Nicholas Epley; Rebecca N Eyre
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2007-11

2.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.

Authors:  A Tversky; D Kahneman
Journal:  Science       Date:  1974-09-27       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Two Is Not Always Better Than One: A Critical Evaluation of Two-System Theories.

Authors:  Gideon Keren; Yaacov Schul
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2009-11

4.  Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate.

Authors:  Jonathan St B T Evans; Keith E Stanovich
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2013-05

Review 5.  Unconscious influences on decision making: a critical review.

Authors:  Ben R Newell; David R Shanks
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2014-01-24       Impact factor: 12.579

6.  All Negative Moods Are Not Equal: Motivational Influences of Anxiety and Sadness on Decision Making.

Authors: 
Journal:  Organ Behav Hum Decis Process       Date:  1999-07

Review 7.  Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition.

Authors:  Jonathan St B T Evans
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 24.137

8.  Anxiety impairs decision-making: psychophysiological evidence from an Iowa Gambling Task.

Authors:  Andrei C Miu; Renata M Heilman; Daniel Houser
Journal:  Biol Psychol       Date:  2007-12-07       Impact factor: 3.251

9.  Cognitive reflection vs. calculation in decision making.

Authors:  Aleksandr Sinayev; Ellen Peters
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-05-07

10.  Commentary: Cognitive reflection vs. calculation in decision making.

Authors:  Gordon Pennycook; Robert M Ross
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-01-22
View more
  2 in total

1.  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

2.  A meta-analysis of the relation between math anxiety and math achievement.

Authors:  Connie Barroso; Colleen M Ganley; Amanda L McGraw; Elyssa A Geer; Sara A Hart; Mia C Daucourt
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2020-10-29       Impact factor: 17.737

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.