4.5 Article

From bias to sound intuiting: Boosting correct intuitive reasoning

期刊

COGNITION
卷 211, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104645

关键词

Reasoning; Decision-making; Dual process theory; Heuristics & Biases; De-biasing; Intuition

资金

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche, France [ANR-16-CE28-0010-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Through three studies, it was found that training not only improved participants' performance, but also had an effect as early as the intuitive stage. After training, most participants were able to correctly solve problems from the beginning without needing to correct initial incorrect answers through deliberation. The research suggests that a short training intervention can enhance sound reasoning at an intuitive level.
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-known Bat-and-Ball problem. We used a two-response paradigm in which participants first gave an initial intuitive response, under time pressure and cognitive load, and then gave a final response after deliberation. Studies 1 and 2 showed that not only did training boost performance, it did so as early as the intuitive stage. After training, most participants solved the problems correctly from the outset and no longer needed to correct an initial incorrect answer through deliberation. Study 3 indicated that this sound intuiting sustained over at least two months. The findings confirm that a short training can boost sound reasoning at an intuitive stage. We discuss key theoretical and applied implications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据