Reflections on reflection: the nature and function of type 2 processes in dual-process theories of reasoning

References

• Ackerman, R., & Thompson, V., A. (2017). Meta-reasoning: Monitoring and control of thinking and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(8), 607–617. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. (2007). Working memory, thought and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2017). Fast logic?: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory. Cognition, 158, 90–109. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2019). The smart System 1: Evidence for the intuitive nature of correct responding on the bat-and-ball problem. Thinking & Reasoning, 25, 257–299. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2018.1507949
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball, L. J., Lucas, E. J., Miles, J. N. V., & Gale, A. G. (2003). Inspection times and the selection task: What do eye-movements reveal about relevance effects?. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56(6), 1053–1077. doi: 10.1080/02724980244000729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbey, A. K., & Sloman, S. A. (2007). Base-rate respect: From ecological rationality to dual processes. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(3), 241–297. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X07001653
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bargh, J. A. (2006). (Ed) Social psychology and the unconscious. New York: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Braine, M. D. S., & O'Brien, D. P. (1991). A theory of If: A lexical entry, reasoning program, and pragmatic principles. Psychological Review, 98(2), 182–203. doi: 10.1037//0033-295X.98.2.182
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carruthers, P. (2006). The architecture of the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason?. Cognition, 31(3), 187–276. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(89)90023-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neys, W. (2006). Automatic-heuristic and executive-analytic processing during reasoning: Chronometric and dual-task considerations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(6), 1070–1100. doi: 10.1080/02724980543000123
   PubMed 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:doi: 10.1080/13546783.2013.854725
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neys, W. (2018). Bias, conflict and fast logic: Towards a hybrid dual process future? In W. De Neys (Ed.), Dual procss theory 2.0 (pp. 47–65). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Elqayam, S., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (2011). Subtracting 'ought from 'is': Descriptivism versus normativism in the study of human thinking. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(5), 233–290. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X1100001X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T. (1982). The psychology of deductive reasoning. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T. (1984). Heuristic and analytic processes in reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 75(4), 451–468. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1984.tb01915.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T. (1996). Deciding before you think: Relevance and reasoning in the selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 87(2), 223–240. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1996.tb02587.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T. (1998). Matching bias in conditional reasoning: Do we understand it after 25 years?. Thinking & Reasoning, 4, 45–82. doi: 10.1080/135467898394247
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T. (2000). Thinking and believing. In J. A. Garcia-Madruga, N. Carriedo, & M. J. Gonzales-Labra (Eds.), Mental models in reasoning (pp. 41–56). Madrid: UNED.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13(3), 378–395. doi: 10.3758/BF03193858
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T. (2007a). Hypothetical thinking: Dual processes in reasoning and judgement. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T. (2007b). On the resolution of conflict in dual-process theories of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 13, 321–329. doi: 10.1080/13546780601008825
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T. (2009). How many dual-process theories do we need: One, two or many? In J. St. B. T. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 31–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T. (2010). Intuition and reasoning: A dual-process perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 21(4), 313–326. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2010.521057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T. (2010b). Thinking twice: Two minds in one brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T. (2011). Dual-process theories of reasoning: Contemporary issues and developmental applications. Developmental Review, 31(2-3), 86–102. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2011.07.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T. (2012). Dual-process theories of reasoning: facts and fallacies. In K. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 115–133). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T. (2013). Two minds rationality. Thinking & Reasoning, 20, 129–146. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2013.845605
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T. (2016). Reasoning, biases and dual processes: The lasting impact of Wason (1960). Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(10), 2076–2092. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2014.914547
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T. (2018). Dual-process theory: Perspectives and problems. In W. De Neys (Ed.), Dual process theory 2.0 (pp. 137–155). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T., Allen, J. L., Newstead, S. E., & Pollard, P. (1994). Debiasing by instruction: the case of belief bias. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 6(3), 263–285. doi: 10.1080/09541449408520148
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T., & Ball, L. J. (2010). Do people reason on the Wason selection task: A new look at the data of Ball et al. (2003). Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(3), 434–441. doi: 10.1080/17470210903398147
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T., Barston, J. L., & Pollard, P. (1983). On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 11, 295–306. doi: 10.3758/BF03196976
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T., & 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., Handley, S., Neilens, H., Bacon, A. M., & Over, D. E. (2010). The influence of cognitive ability and instructional set on causal conditional inference. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(5), 892–909. doi: 10.1080/17470210903111821
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T., Handley, S. J., & Harper, C. (2001). Necessity, possibility and belief: A study of syllogistic reasoning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 54A(3), 935–958. doi: 10.1080/02724980042000417
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T., & Lynch, J. S. (1973). Matching bias in the selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 64(3), 391–397. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1973.tb01365.x
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Hove: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013a). 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
• Evans, J. St. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013b). Theory and metatheory in the study of dual processing: A reply to comments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 263–271. doi: 10.1177/1745691613483774
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T., & Wason, P. C. (1976). Rationalisation in a reasoning task. British Journal of Psychology, 63, 205–212.
   Google Scholar
• Frankish, K., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (2009). The duality of mind: An historical perspective. In J. St. B. T. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 1–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42. 4), doi: 10.1257/089533005775196732
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Personal reflections on theory and psychology. Theory & Psychology, 20(6), 733–743. doi: 10.1177/0959354310378184
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gobet, F. (2019). The psychology of chess. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Goel, V., & Dolan, R. J. (2003). Explaining modulation of reasoning by belief. Cognition, 87(1), B11–B22.
   PubMed 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), 28–43. doi: 10.1037/a0021098
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffrage, U., Gigerenzer, G., Krauss, S., & Martigon, L. (2002). Representation facilitates reasoning: What natural frequencies are and what they are not. Cognition, 84(3), 343–352. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00050-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houde, O. (2019). 3-System theory of the cognitive brain. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Howarth, S., Handley, S., & Walsh, C. (2016). The logic-bias effect: The role of effortful processing in the resolution of belief–logic conflict. Memory & Cognition, 44(2), 330–349. doi: 10.3758/s13421-015-0555-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgement. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keren, G., & Schul, Y. (2009). Two is not always better than one: A critical evaluation of two-system theories. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(6), 533–550. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01164.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klauer, K. C., Beller, S., & Hutter, M. (2010). Conditional reasoning in context: A dual-source model of probabilistic inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 36(2), 298–323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klauer, K. C., Musch, J., & Naumer, B. (2000). On belief bias in syllogistic reasoning. Psychological Review, 107(4), 852–884. doi: 10.1037//0033-295X.107.4.852
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, G. (1998). Sources of power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kruglanski, A. W., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Intuitive and deliberative judgements are based on common principles. Psychological Review, 118(1), 97–109. doi: 10.1037/a0020762
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucas, E. J., & Ball, L. J. (2005). Think-aloud protocols and the selection task: Evidence for relevance effects and rationalisation processes. Thinking and Reasoning, 11(1), 35–66. doi: 10.1080/13546780442000114
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melnikoff, D., & Bargh, J. A. (2018). The mythical number two. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(4), 280–293. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2018.02.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–111. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10000968
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The enigma of reason: A new theory of human understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mithen, S. (1996). The prehistory of the mind. London: Thames and Hudson.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, I., Gibb, M., & Thompson, V., A. (2017). Rule-based reasoning is fast and belief-based reasoning can be slow: Challenging current explanations of belief-bias and base-rate neglect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 43, 1154–1170. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000372
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbett, R. E., Krantz, D. H., Jepson, D. H., & Kunda, Z. (1983). The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 90(4), 339–363. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.339
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–295. doi: 10.1037//0033-295X.84.3.231
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oakhill, J., Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Garnham, A. (1989). Believability and syllogistic reasoning. Cognition, 31(2), 117–140. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(89)90020-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osman, M. (2004). An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin &Amp; Review, 11(6), 988–1010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennycook, G., De Neys, W., Evans, J. St. B. T., Stanovich, K., & Thompson, V. (2018). The mythical dual-process typology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 667–668.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2012). Are we good at detecting conflict during reasoning?. Cognition, 124(1), 101–106. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.004
   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
• Raylu, N., & Oei, T. P. S. (2002). Pathological gambling: A comprehensive. Review. Clinical Psychology Review, 22(7), 1009–1061. doi: 10.1016/S0272-7358(02)00101-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson, S. I. (2001). Problem solving. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Samuels, R. (2009). The magic number two plus or minus: Some comments on dual-processing theories of cognition. In J. St. B. T. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 129–146). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing I: Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review, 84(1), 1–66. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.1.1
   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), 127–189. doi: 10.1037//0033-295X.84.2.127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3–22. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, E., & DeCoster, J. (1999). Associative and rule-based processing: A connectionist interpretation of dual-process models. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 323–360). New York: The Guildford Press. (Reprinted from: IN FILE).
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Elrbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E. (2004). The robot's rebellion: Finding meaning the age of Darwin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E. (2009a). The thinking that IQ tests miss. Scientific American, November/December, 33–39.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E. (2009b). What intelligence tests miss. The psychology of rational thought. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E. (2011). Rationality and the reflective mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E. (2018). Miserliness in human cognition: The interaction of detection, override and mindware. Thinking & Reasoning, 24, 423–444. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2018.1459314
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., West, C., & Toplak, M. E. (2016). The Rationality Quotient: Towards a test of rational thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, V. A. (2009). Dual-process theories: A metacognitive perspective. In J. St. B. T. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 171–196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, V. A., Evans, J. S. T., & Campbell, J. I. D. (2013). Matching bias on the selection task: It's fast and feels good. Thinking & Reasoning, 19(3-4), 431–452. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2013.820220
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, V. A., & Johnson, S. C. (2014). Conflict, metacognition, and analytic thinking. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 215–244. doi:doi: 10.1080/13546783.2013.869763
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, V. A., & Morsanyi, K. (2012). Analytic thinking: Do you feel like it? Mind & Society, 11(1), 93–105. doi: 10.1177/1529100610378437
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, V. A., Pennycook, G., Trippas, D., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (2018). Do smart people have better intuitions?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 945–961.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, V. A., Prowse Turner, J. A., & 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
• Verschueren, N., Schaeken, W., & d'Ydewalle, G. (2005). A dual-process specification of causal conditional reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 11(3), 239–278. doi: 10.1080/13546780442000178
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wason, P. C. (1968). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses: a second look. In P. C. Wason & P. N. Johnson-Laird (Eds.), Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 165–174). Harmandsworth: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Wason, P. C., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (1974). Dual processes in reasoning?. Cognition, 3(2), 141–154. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(74)90017-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, T. D. (2002). Strangers to ourselves. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
   Google Scholar