A contribute to the default-interventionist and parallel accounts in deductive reasoning. The effect of decisional styles on logic and belief

References

• Caprì, T., Fabio, R. A., Towey, G. E., & Antonietti, A. (2019). Attention today (pp. 1–164). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publisher.
   Google Scholar
• Capri, T., Santoddì, E., & Fabio, R. A. (2020). Multi-source interference task paradigm to enhance automatic and controlled processes in ADHD. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 97, 103542. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2019.103542
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carbonnell, L., & Falkenstein, M. (2006). Does the error negativity reflect the degree of response conflict? Brain Research, 1095(1), 124–130. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.04.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carr, T. H., McCauley, C., Sperber, R. D., & Parmalee, C. M. (1982). Words, pictures, and priming: On semantic activation, conscious identification, and the automaticity of information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 8, 757–777.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavarra, M., Canegallo, V., & Fabio, R. A. (2020). Choose peace: The role of automatic and controlled processes in peace decision-making. In M. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in psychology research (Vol. 140, pp. 91–145). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publisher.
   Google Scholar
• Curşeu, P. L., & Schruijer, S. G. L. (2012). Decision styles and rationality: An analysis of the predictive validity of the general decision-making style inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(6), 1053–1062. doi:10.1177/0013164412448066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neys, W. (2012). Bias and conflict: A case for logical intuitions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(1), 28–38. doi:10.1177/1745691611429354
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neys, W. (2014). Conflict detection, dual processes, and logical intuitions: Some clarifications. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 169–187. doi:10.1080/13546783.2013.854725
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neys, W. (2022). Advancing theorizing about fast-and-slow thinking. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46, E111. doi:10.1017/S0140525X2200142X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neys, W., Cromheeke, S., & Osman, M. (2011). Biased but in doubt: Conflict and decision confidence. PLOS One, 6(1), e15954. doi:10.1371/journal.Pone0015954
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neys, W., & Glumicic, T. (2008). Conflict monitoring in dual process theories of thinking. Cognition, 106(3), 1248–1299. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neys, W., Moyens, E., & Vansteenwegen, D. (2010). Feeling we’re biased: Autonomic arousal and reasoning conflict. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 10(2), 208–216. doi:10.3758/CABN.10.2.208
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B., & Curtis-Holmes, J. (2005). Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 11(4), 382–389. doi:10.1080/13546780542000005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J., & St, B. T. (2007). Hypothetical thinking: Dual processes in reasoning and judgement. Hove: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. doi:10.1177/1745691612460685
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fabio, R., & Caprì, T. (2023). Advancing theorizing about fast-and-slow thinking: The interplay between fast and slow processing. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46, E119. doi:10.1017/S0140525X22003156
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fabio, R. A. (2017). The study of automatic and controlled processes in ADHD: A reread and a new proposal. Mediterranean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 5(1). doi:10.6092/2282-1619/2017.5.1507
   Google Scholar
• Fabio, R. A., & Caprì, T. (2019). Automatic and controlled attentional capture by threatening stimuli. Heliyon, 5(5), e01752. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01752
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fabio, R. A., Caprì, T., & Romano, M. (2019). From controlled to automatic processes and back again: The role of contextual features. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 15(4), 773–788. doi:10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1746
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fabio, R. A., Caprì, T., Nucita, A., Iannizzotto, G., & Mohammadhasani, N. (2019). Eye-gaze digital games improve motivational and attentional abilities in RETT syndrome. Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation, 19(3–4), 105–126. doi:10.19057/jser.2019.43
   Google Scholar
• Fabio, R. A., Rizzotto, C., & Colombo, B. (2020). The analysis of the independence hypothesis: Working and procedural memory in young adults with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder. Cognition, Brain, Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24(3), 255–270. doi:10.24193/cbb.2020.24.14
   Google Scholar
• Gangemi, A., Bourgeois-Gironde, S., & Mancini, F. (2015). Feelings of error in reasoning—in search of a phenomenon. Thinking & Reasoning, 21(4), 383–396. doi:10.1080/13546783.2014.980755
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handley, S. J., & Trippas, D. (2015). Dual processes and the interplay between knowledge and structure: A new parallel processing model. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 62, 33–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handley, S. J., Newstead, S. E., & Trippas, D. (2011). Logic, beliefs, and instruction: A test of the default interventionist account of belief bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(1), 28–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiefer, M. (2012). Executive control over unconscious cognition: Attentional sensitization of unconscious information processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 61. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00061
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiefer, M., & Martens, U. (2010). Attentional sensitization of unconscious cognition: Task sets modulate subsequent masked semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(3), 464–489. doi:10.1037/a0019561
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLeod, P., McLaughlin, C., & Nimmo-Smith, I. (1986). Information encapsulation and automaticity evidence from the visual control of finely-timed actions. In M. Posner, & O. Marin (Eds), Attention and performance XI. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Moors, A., & De Houwer, J. (2006). Automaticity: A theoretical and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 297–326. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.297
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naccache, L., Blandin, E., & Dehaene, S. (2002). Unconscious masked priming depends on temporal attention. Psychological Science, 13(5), 416–424. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00474
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neely, J. H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106(3), 226–254. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.106.3.226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumann, O. (1990). Direct parameter specification and the concept of perception. Psychological Research, 52(2-3), 207–215. doi:10.1007/BF00877529
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(12), 1865–1880. doi:10.1037/xge0000465
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2015). What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement. Cognitive Psychology, 80, 34–72. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.05.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennycook, G., Trippas, D., Handley, S. J., & Thompson, V. A. (2014). Base rates: Both neglected and intuitive. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(2), 544.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995). Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(5), 818–831. doi:10.1177/0013164495055005017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2), 127–190. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sloman, S. (2014). Two systems of reasoning: An update. In J. W. Sherman, B. Gawronski, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories of the social mind (pp. 69–79). New York: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, V. A., Turner, J. A. P., & Pennycook, G. (2011). Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63(3), 107–140. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.06.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trippas, D., Thompson, V. A., & Handley, S. J. (2017). When fast logic meets slow belief: Evidence for a parallel-processing model of belief bias. Memory & Cognition, 45(4), 539–552. doi:10.3758/s13421-016-0680-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, N. L., & Highhouse, S. (2014). Do self-reported decision styles relate with others’ impressions of decision quality? Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 224–228. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zbrodoff, N. J., & Logan, G. D. (1986). On the autonomy of mental processes: A case study of arithmetic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(2), 118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar