Conflict detection predicts the temporal stability of intuitive and deliberate reasoning

References

• Bago, B., Bonnefon, J. F., & De Neys, W. (2021). Intuition rather than deliberation determines selfish and prosocial choices. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 150(6), 1081–1094. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000968
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2017). Fast logic?: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory. Cognition, 158, 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2019a). The Smart System 1: Evidence for the intuitive nature of correct responding on the bat-and-ball problem. Thinking & Reasoning, 25(3), 257–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2018.1507949
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2019b). The intuitive greater good: Testing the corrective dual process model of moral cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 148(10), 1782–1801. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000533
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2020). Advancing the specification of dual process models of higher cognition: A critical test of the hybrid model view. Thinking & Reasoning, 26(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2018.1552194
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron, J., Scott, S., Fincher, K., & Metz, S. E. (2015). Why does the Cognitive Reflection Test (sometimes) predict utilitarian moral judgment (and other things)? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(3), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Białek, M., Muda, R., Stewart, K., Niszczota, P., & Pieńkosz, D. (2020). Thinking in a foreign language distorts allocation of cognitive effort: Evidence from reasoning. Cognition, 205, 104420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104420
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Białek, M., & Sawicki, P. (2018). Cognitive reflection effects on time discounting. Journal of Individual Differences, 39(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Białek, M., & Pennycook, G. (2018). The cognitive reflection test is robust to multiple exposures. Behavior Research Methods, 50(5), 1953–1959. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0963-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boissin, E., Caparos, S., Raoelison, M., & De Neys, W. (2021). From bias to sound intuiting: Boosting correct intuitive reasoning. Cognition, 211, 104645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104645
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burič, R., & Konrádová, Ľ. (2021). Mindware Instantiation as a Predictor of Logical Intuitions in the Cognitive Reflection Test. Studia Psychologica, 63(2), 114–128. https://doi.org/10.31577/sp.2021.02.822
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burič, R., & Šrol, J. (2020). Individual differences in logical intuitions on reasoning problems presented under two-response paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 32(4), 460–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2020.1766472
   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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.854725
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neys, W. (2017). Bias, conflict, and fast logic: Towards a hybrid dual process future?. In W. De Neys (Ed.), Dual process theory 2.0 (pp. 47–65). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• De Neys, W. (2021). On dual- and single-process models of thinking. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1412–1427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620964172
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neys, W., & Glumicic, T. (2008). Conflict monitoring in dual process theories of thinking. Cognition, 106(3), 1248–1299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neys, W., & Pennycook, G. (2019). Logic, fast and slow: Advances in dual-process theorizing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(5), 503–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419855658
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neys, W., Rossi, S., & Houdé, O. (2013). Bats, balls, and substitution sensitivity: Cognitive misers are no happy fools. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(2), 269–273. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0384-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dujmović, M., Valerjev, P., & Bajšanski, I. (2021). The role of representativeness in reasoning and metacognitive processes: An in-depth analysis of the Linda problem. Thinking & Reasoning, 27(2), 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1746692
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. The American Psychologist, 49(8), 709–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.8.709
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B., & Over, D. E. (2013). Rationality and reasoning. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203027677
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, M. B., Mata, A., Donkin, C., Sherman, S. J., & Ihmels, M. (2016). Analytic and heuristic processes in the detection and resolution of conflict. Memory & Cognition, 44(7), 1050–1063. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0618-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frey, D., Johnson, E. D., & De Neys, W. (2018). Individual differences in conflict detection during reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(5), 1188–1208. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1313283
   PubMed Web of Science ®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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2014.980755
   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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021098
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hope, R. M. (2013). Rmisc: Rmisc: Ryan Miscellaneous. R package version 1.5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Rmisc
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Kassambara, A. (2020). ggpubr: ‘ggplot2’ based publication ready plots. R package version 0.4.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggpubr
   Google Scholar
• Kassambara, A. (2021). rstatix: Pipe-friendly framework for basic statistical tests. R package version 0.7.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rstatix
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence, M. A. (2016). ez: Easy analysis and visualization of factorial experiments. R package version 4.4-0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ez
   Google Scholar
• Mata, A. (2020). Conflict detection and social perception: Bringing meta-reasoning and social cognition together. Thinking & Reasoning, 26(1), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2019.1611664
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mata, A., Ferreira, M. B., Voss, A., & Kollei, T. (2017). Seeing the conflict: An attentional account of reasoning errors. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(6), 1980–1986. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1234-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mevel, K., Poirel, N., Rossi, S., Cassotti, M., Simon, G., Houdé, O., & De Neys, W. (2015). Bias detection: Response confidence evidence for conflict sensitivity in the ratio bias task. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2014.986487
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, A., Zhou, E., & Shane, F. (2018). The non-effects of repeated exposure to the Cognitive Reflection Test. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(3), 246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Rettinger, D. A., Shah, P., & Hegarty, M. (2001). How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 130(4), 621–640. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.130.4.621
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, I., Gibb, M., & Thompson, V. (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(7), 1154–1170. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000372
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2014). Cognitive style and religiosity: The role of conflict detection. Memory & Cognition, 42(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0340-7
   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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.05.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Raoelison, M., & De Neys, W. (2019). Do we de-bias ourselves?: The impact of repeated presentation on the bat-and-ball problem. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(2), 170–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raoelison, M., Thompson, V. A., & De Neys, W. (2020). The smart intuitor: Cognitive capacity predicts intuitive rather than deliberate thinking. Cognition, 204, 104381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104381
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shenhav, A., Rand, D. G., & Greene, J. D. (2012). Divine intuition: Cognitive style influences belief in God. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 141(3), 423–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025391
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Šrol, J., & De Neys, W. (2021). Predicting individual differences in conflict detection and bias susceptibility during reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 27(1), 38–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2019.1708793
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stango, V., & Zinman, J. (2020). Behavioral biases are temporally stable. Unpublished Working Paper. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3695593
   Google Scholar
• Stupple, E. J. N., Ball, L. J., & Ellis, D. (2013). Matching bias in syllogistic reasoning: Evidence for a dual-process account from response times and confidence ratings. Thinking & Reasoning, 19(1), 54–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2012.735622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stupple, E. J., Gale, M., & Richmond, C. R. (2013). Working memory, cognitive miserliness and logic as predictors of performance on the cognitive reflection test. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1396–1401). Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, V. A., & Johnson, S. C. (2014). Conflict, metacognition, and analytic thinking. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 215–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.869763
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, V. A., Turner, J. A. P., & Pennycook, G. (2011). Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63(3), 107–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.06.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2014). Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.844729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2017). Real-world correlates of performance on heuristics and biases tasks in a community sample: heuristics and biases tasks and outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(2), 541–554. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1973
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trippas, D., & Handley, S. (2017). The parallel processing model of belief bias: Review and extensions. In W. De Neys (Ed.), Dual process theory 2.0. (pp. 28–46). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.293
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vega, S., Mata, A., Ferreira, M. B., & Vaz, A. R. (2021). Metacognition in moral decisions: Judgment extremity and feeling of rightness in moral intuitions. Thinking & Reasoning, 27(1), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1741448
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West, R. F., Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 930–941. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012842
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org
   Google Scholar
• Wickham, H. (2021). tidyr: Tidy messy data. R package version 1.1.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyr
   Google Scholar
• Wickham, H., François, R., Henry, L., & Müller, K. (2021). dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. R package version 1.0.6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr
   Google Scholar