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

被引:225
作者
Bago, Bence [1 ,2 ]
De Neys, Wim [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Paris Descartes Univ, Sorbonne Paris Cite, UMR 8240, LaPsyDE, Paris, France
[2] Caen Basse Normandie Univ, UMR 8240, LaPsyDE, Caen, France
[3] CNRS, UMR 8240, LaPsyDE, F-75700 Paris, France
关键词
Dual process theory; Reasoning; Conflict detection; CONFLICT DETECTION; BASE RATES; COGNITIVE REFLECTION; SYSTEMS; BIAS; CONFIDENCE; INTUITION; RATIONALITY; RECOGNITION; EFFORTLESS;
D O I
10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.014
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
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. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:90 / 109
页数:20
相关论文
共 64 条
[1]   Lax monitoring versus logical intuition: The determinants of confidence in conjunction fallacy [J].
Aczel, Balazs ;
Szollosi, Aba ;
Bago, Bence .
THINKING & REASONING, 2016, 22 (01) :99-117
[2]   RECOGNITION AND RETRIEVAL PROCESSES IN FREE-RECALL [J].
ANDERSON, JR ;
BOWER, GH .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1972, 79 (02) :97-&
[3]  
[Anonymous], MIND SOC
[4]  
[Anonymous], RULE BASED REA UNPUB
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2011, RATIONALITY REFLECTI, DOI DOI 10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780195341140.003.0002
[6]   Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items [J].
Baayen, R. H. ;
Davidson, D. J. ;
Bates, D. M. .
JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE, 2008, 59 (04) :390-412
[7]   Base-rate respect: From ecological rationality to dual processes [J].
Barbey, Aron K. ;
Sloman, Steven A. .
BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES, 2007, 30 (03) :241-+
[8]   Memory Retrieval in Mice and Men [J].
Ben-Yakov, Aya ;
Dudai, Yadin ;
Mayford, Mark R. .
COLD SPRING HARBOR PERSPECTIVES IN BIOLOGY, 2015, 7 (12)
[9]   In conflict with ourselves? An investigation of heuristic and analytic processes in decision making [J].
Bonner, Carissa ;
Newell, Ben R. .
MEMORY & COGNITION, 2010, 38 (02) :186-196
[10]   The accuracy of meta-metacognitive judgments: regulating the realism of confidence [J].
Buratti, Sandra ;
Allwood, Carl Martin .
COGNITIVE PROCESSING, 2012, 13 (03) :243-253