Journal
THINKING & REASONING
Volume 27, Issue 1, Pages 142-159Publisher
ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2020.1759689
Keywords
Cognitive reflection test; verbal cognitive reflection test; disfluent font; numeracy; fluency
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Previous research suggested that perceptual disfluency increases solution rate of mathematical problems, but recent studies found no evidence for this. Simplistic instructions to focus on verbal problems did boost their solution rate, however, showing that disfluency does not activate analytical processing.
Prior research has suggested that perceptual disfluency activates analytical processing and increases the solution rate of mathematical problems with appealing but incorrect answers (i.e., the Cognitive Reflection Test, hereafter CRT). However, a recent meta-analysis does not support such a conclusion. We tested here whether insufficient numerical ability can account for this discrepancy. We found strong evidence against the disfluency effect on the problem-solving rate for the Numerical CRT problems regardless of participants' numeracy and for the Verbal CRT non-math problems (n = 310, Exp. 1) even though simple instructions to pay attention to and reflect upon the Verbal CRT problems substantially increased their solution rate (n = 311, Exp. 2). The updated meta-analysis (k = 18) yielded close-to-zero effect, Hedge's g = -0.01, 95% CI[-0.05, 0.03] and decisive evidence against the disfluency effect on math problems, BF0+ = 151.6. Thus, perceptual disfluency does not activate analytical processing.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available