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

Published on Feb 11, 2021in Memory & Cognition
· DOI :10.3758/S13421-021-01140-X
Matthieu T.S. Raoelison4
Estimated H-index: 4
(University of Paris),
Marine Keime1
Estimated H-index: 1
(Glas.: University of Glasgow),
Wim De Neys37
Estimated H-index: 37
(University of Paris)
Sources
Abstract
Influential studies on human thinking with the popular two-response paradigm typically ask participants to continuously alternate between intuitive ("fast") and deliberate ("slow") responding. One concern is that repeated deliberation in these studies will artificially boost the intuitive, "fast" reasoning performance. A recent alternative two-block paradigm therefore advised to present all fast trials in one block before the slow trials were presented. Here, we tested directly whether allowing people to repeatedly deliberate will boost their intuitive reasoning performance by manipulating the order of the fast and slow blocks. In each block, participants solved variants of the bat-and-ball problem. Maximum response time in fast blocks was 4 s and 25 s in the slow blocks. One group solved the fast trials before the slow trials, a second group solved the slow trials first, and a third mixed group alternated between slow and fast trials. Results showed that the order factor did not affect accuracy on the fast trials. This indicates that repeated deliberation does not boost people's intuitive reasoning performance.
📖 Papers frequently viewed together
2007
19 Citations
References25
Newest
#1Bence Bago (University of Toulouse)H-Index: 10
#3Wim De Neys (University of Paris)H-Index: 37
Human interactions often involve a choice between acting selfishly (in ones' own interest) and acting prosocially (in the interest of others). Fast and slow models of prosociality posit that people intuitively favor 1 of these choices (the selfish choice in some models, the prosocial choice in other models) and need to correct this intuition through deliberation to make the other choice. We present 7 studies that force us to reconsider this longstanding corrective dual-process view. Participants...
1 CitationsSource
#1Alejandro Rosas (National University of Colombia)H-Index: 10
AbstractThe mainstream version of the dual-process model of moral cognition claims that utilitarian responses (URs) to sacrificial moral dilemmas are the outputs of controlled cognitive processes. ...
6 CitationsSource
#1Hadley WickhamH-Index: 31
#2Romain FrançoisH-Index: 4
Last. Kirill MüllerH-Index: 4
view all 4 authors...
238 Citations
#1M. Asher LawsonH-Index: 1
#2Richard P. LarrickH-Index: 37
Last. Jack B. SollH-Index: 17
view all 3 authors...
Research on judgment and decision making has suggested that the System 2 process of slow thinking can help people to improve their decision making by reducing well-established statistical decision biases (including base rate neglect, probability matching, and the conjunction fallacy). In a large pre-registered study with 1,706 participants and 23,292 unique observations, we compare the effects of individual differences and behavioral interventions to test the relative benefits of slow thinking o...
2 Citations
#1Bence Bago (Paris V: Paris Descartes University)H-Index: 10
#2Wim De Neys (Paris V: Paris Descartes University)H-Index: 37
: Building on the old adage that the deliberate mind corrects the emotional heart, the influential dual process model of moral cognition has posited that utilitarian responding to moral dilemmas (i.e., choosing the greater good) requires deliberate correction of an intuitive deontological response. In the present article, we present 4 studies that force us to revise this longstanding "corrective" dual process assumption. We used a two-response paradigm in which participants had to give their fir...
26 CitationsSource
#1Wim De Neys (CNRS: Centre national de la recherche scientifique)H-Index: 37
#2Gordon Pennycook (University of Regina)H-Index: 40
Studies on human reasoning have long established that intuitions can bias inference and lead to violations of logical norms. Popular dual-process models, which characterize thinking as an interacti...
41 CitationsSource
#1Henry Markovits (UQAM: Université du Québec à Montréal)H-Index: 16
#2Pier-Luc de Chantal (UQAM: Université du Québec à Montréal)H-Index: 6
Last. Émilie Gagnon-St-Pierre (UQAM: Université du Québec à Montréal)H-Index: 2
view all 4 authors...
Dual process theories postulate the existence of two levels of processing, Type 1, which uses belief-based cues to make very rapid inferences, and Type 2, which uses more conscious, working memory-based processes that are, in principle, capable of making rule-based judgments. There is a common assumption that Type 1 processes are more rapidly produced, while Type 2 processes take more time. Evidence for this assumption is mixed. Recently, Newman, Gibb, and Thompson (Journal of Experimental Psych...
4 CitationsSource
AbstractI present a critical discussion of dual-process theories of reasoning and decision making with particular attention to the nature and role of Type 2 processes. The original theory proposed ...
18 CitationsSource
#1Bence Bago (Paris V: Paris Descartes University)H-Index: 10
#2Wim De Neys (Paris V: Paris Descartes University)H-Index: 37
AbstractInfluential work on reasoning and decision-making has popularised the idea that sound reasoning requires correction of fast, intuitive thought processes by slower and more demanding deliberation. We present seven studies that question this corrective view of human thinking. We focused on the very problem that has been widely featured as the paradigmatic illustration of the corrective view, the well-known bat-and-ball problem. A two-response paradigm in which people were required to give ...
35 CitationsSource
#1Bence Bago (Paris V: Paris Descartes University)H-Index: 10
#2Matthieu T.S. Raoelison (Paris V: Paris Descartes University)H-Index: 4
Last. Wim De Neys (Paris V: Paris Descartes University)H-Index: 37
view all 3 authors...
Abstract In the last decade conflict detection studies in the reasoning and decision-making field have suggested that biased reasoners who give an intuitive response that conflicts with logico-mathematical principles can often detect that their answer is questionable. In the present studies we introduced a second guess paradigm to test the nature and specificity of this error or conflict signal. Participants solved the bat-and-ball problem and were allowed to make a second guess after they had e...
6 CitationsSource
Cited By1
Newest
#1Esther Boissin (University of Paris)
#2Serge CaparosH-Index: 12
Last. Wim De Neys (University of Paris)H-Index: 37
view all 4 authors...
Abstract Although human thinking is often biased by erroneous intuitions, recent de-bias studies suggest that people's performance can be boosted by short training interventions, where the correct answers to reasoning problems are explained. However, the nature of this training effect remains unclear. Does training help participants correct erroneous intuitions through deliberation? Or does it help them develop correct intuitions? We addressed this issue in three studies, by focusing on the well...
Source