J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn
School of Psychology, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon, United Kingdom.
Published: January 2011
According to dual-process accounts of thinking, belief-based responses on reasoning tasks are generated as default but can be intervened upon in favor of logical responding, given sufficient time, effort, or cognitive resource. In this article, we present the results of 5 experiments in which participants were instructed to evaluate the conclusions of logical arguments on the basis of either their logical validity or their believability. Contrary to the predictions arising from these accounts, the logical status of the presented conclusion had a greater impact on judgments concerning its believability than did the believability of the conclusion on judgments about whether it followed logically. This finding was observed when instructional set was presented as a between-participants factor (Experiment 1), when instruction was indicated prior to problem presentation by a cue (Experiment 2), and when the cue appeared simultaneously with conclusion presentation (Experiments 3 and 4). The finding also extended to a range of simple and more complex argument forms (Experiment 5). In these latter experiments, belief-based judgments took significantly longer than those made under logical instructions. We discuss the implications of these findings for default interventionist accounts of belief bias.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021098 | DOI Listing |
Med Educ
July 2024
McMaster Education Research, Innovation & Theory (MERIT) Program, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Background: Understanding the factors that contribute to diagnostic errors is critical if we are to correct or prevent them. Some scholars influenced by the default interventionist dual-process theory of cognition (dual-process theory) emphasise a narrow focus on individual clinician's faulty reasoning as a significant contributor. In this paper, we examine the validity of claims that dual process theory is a key to error reduction.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFFront Health Serv
January 2024
Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States.
There are numerous frameworks for implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) in novel settings to achieve "fidelity." However, identifying appropriate referents for fidelity poses a challenge. The Core Functions and Forms paradigm offers a model that can inform adaptation decisions throughout all phases of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBasic Clin Neurosci
July 2023
Institute for Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Introduction: Frontoparietal (FPN) and cingulo-opercular network (CON) control cognitive functions needed in deductive and inductive reasoning via different functional frameworks. The FPN is a fast intuitive system while the CON is slow and analytical. The default-interventionist model presents a serial view of the interaction between intuitive and analytic cognitive systems.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFClassical theories of reasoning equate System 1 with biases and System 2 with correct responses. Refined theories of reasoning propose the parallel model to explain the two systems. The first purpose of the present article is to give a contribution to the debate on the parallel and default-interventionfist models: we hypothesized when logic and belief conflict both logical validity and belief judgments will be affected with greater level of response errors and/or longer response times.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBehav Brain Sci
July 2023
Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, CA,
We argue that the dual-system approach and, particularly, the framework favored by De Neys unnecessarily constrains process models, limiting their range of application. In turn, the accommodations De Neys makes for these constraints raise questions of parsimony and falsifiability. We conclude that the extent to which processes possess features of system 1 versus system 2 must be tested empirically.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!
© LitMetric 2025. All rights reserved.