Who detects and why: how do individual differences in cognitive characteristics underpin different types of responses to reasoning tasks?

References

• Attali, Y., & Bar-Hillel, M. (2020). The false allure of fast lures. Judgment & Decision Making, 15(1), 93–111.
   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. (2019). The smart System 1: Evidence for the intuitive nature of correct responding on the bat-and-ball problem. Thinking & Reasoning, 25(3), 257–299.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron, J. (1985). Rationality and intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blacksmith, N., Yang, Y., Behrend, T. S., & Ruark, G. A. (2019). Assessing the validity of inferences from scores on the cognitive reflection test. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 32(5), 599-612. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Böckenholt, U. (2012). The cognitive-miser response model: Testing for intuitive and deliberate reasoning. Psychometrika, 77(2), 388–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-012-9251-y
   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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrd, N., Gongora, G., Joseph, B., & Sirota, M. (2021). Tell us what you really think: A think aloud protocol analysis of the verbal cognitive reflection test.
   Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campitelli, G., & Gerrans, P. (2014). Does the cognitive reflection test measure cognitive reflection? A mathematical modeling approach. Memory & Cognition, 42(3), 434–447.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cokely, E. T., Galesic, M., Schulz, E., Ghazal, S., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2012). Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 25–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Condon, D. M., & Revelle, W. (2014). The international cognitive ability resource: Development and initial validation of a public-domain measure. Intelligence, 43, 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damnjanović, K., Novković, V., Pavlović, I., Ilić, S., & Pantelić, S. (2019). A cue for rational reasoning: Introducing a reference point in cognitive reflection tasks. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 25.
   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. 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neys, W. (2015). Heuristic bias and conflict detection during thinking. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 62, pp. 1–32). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• De Neys, W., Cromheeke, S., & Osman, M. (2011). Biased but in doubt: Conflict and decision confidence. PLoS One. 6(1), e15954.
   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.
   PubMed 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erceg, N., Galić, Z., & Ružojčić, M. (2020). A reflection on cognitive reflection-testing convergent/divergent validity of two measures of cognitive reflection. Judgment & Decision Making, 15(5), 741–755.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 378–395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. (2019). Reflections on reflection: the nature and function of type 2 processes in dual-process theories of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 25(4), 383–415.
   Web of Science ®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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finucane, M. L., & Gullion, C. M. (2010). Developing a tool for measuring the decision-making competence of older adults. Psychology and Aging, 25(2), 271.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frey, D., Johnson, E. D., & De Neys, W. (2018). Individual differences in conflict detection during reasoning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(5), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1313283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghasemi, O., Handley, S., Howarth, S., Newman, I. R., & Thompson, V. A. (2021, May 18). Logical intuition is not really about logic. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/wtupm
   Google Scholar
• Ghazal, S., Cokely, E. T., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2014). Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: numeracy and metacognition. Judgment and Decision Making, 9(1), 15–34.
   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. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 62, pp. 33–58). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, E. D., Tubau, E., & De Neys, W. (2016). The Doubting System 1: Evidence for automatic substitution sensitivity. Acta Psychologica, 164, 56–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Strauss, Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, F. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. In K.J. Holyoak & R.G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 267–293). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Markovits, H., & Nantel, G. (1989). The belief-bias effect in the production and evaluation of logical conclusions. Memory & Cognition, 17(1), 11–17.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2016). Is the cognitive reflection test a measure of both reflection and intuition? Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 341–348.
   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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennycook, G., & Ross, R. M. (2016). Commentary: Cognitive reflection vs. calculation in decision making, 7, 9. Frontiers in Psychology.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Mazzocco, K., & Dickert, S. (2006). Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science, 17(5), 407–413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Primi, C., Morsanyi, K., Chiesi, F., Donati, M. A., & Hamilton, J. (2016). The development and testing of a new version of the cognitive reflection test applying item response theory (IRT). Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29(5), 453–469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purcell, Z. A., Wastell, C. A., & Sweller, N. (2020). Domain-specific experience and dual-process thinking. Thinking & Reasoning, 27(2), 239–267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putarek, V., & Vlahović-Štetić, V. (2019). Metacognitive Feelings, Conflict Detection and Illusion of Linearity. Psihologijske Teme, 28(1), 171–192.
   Google Scholar
• Raoelison, M., Boissin, E., Borst, G., & De Neys, W. (2021). From slow to fast logic: The development of logical intuitions. Thinking & Reasoning, 27(4), 599-622.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raoelison, M. T., 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
• Reyna, V. F., Nelson, W. L., Han, P. K., & Dieckmann, N. F. (2009). How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 943–973.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reyna, V. F., Rahimi-Golkhandan, S., Garavito, D. M., & Helm, R. K. (2017). The fuzzy-trace dual process model. In Dual process theory 2.0 (pp.82–99). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schubert, A. L., Ferreira, M. B., Mata, A., & Riemenschneider, B. (2021). A diffusion model analysis of belief bias: Different cognitive mechanisms explain how cognitive abilities and thinking styles contribute to conflict resolution in reasoning. Cognition, 211, 104629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104629
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sirota, M., Dewberry, C., Juanchich, M., Valuš, L., & Marshall, A. C. (2021). Measuring cognitive reflection without maths: Development and validation of the verbal cognitive reflection test. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 34(3), 322–343.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skagerlund, K., Lind, T., Strömbäck, C., Tinghög, G., & Västfjäll, D. (2018). Financial literacy and the role of numeracy–How individuals’ attitude and affinity with numbers influence financial literacy. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 74, 18–25.
   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
• Sloman, S. A. (2014). Two systems of reasoning: An update. In Sherman, J., Gawronski, B., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). Dual process theories of the social mind. Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sobkow, A., Olszewska, A., & Traczyk, J. (2020). Multiple numeric competencies predict decision outcomes beyond fluid intelligence and cognitive reflection. Intelligence, 80, 101452.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory? In J. St. B. T. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 55–88). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E. (2018). Miserliness in human cognition: the interaction of detection, override and mindware. Thinking & Reasoning, 24(4), 423–444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2016). The rationality quotient: Toward a test of rational thinking. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stupple, E. J., 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stupple, E. J., Pitchford, M., Ball, L. J., Hunt, T. E., & Steel, R. (2017). Slower is not always better: Response-time evidence clarifies the limited role of miserly information processing in the Cognitive Reflection Test. PLoS One. 12(11), e0186404. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186404
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swan, A. B., Calvillo, D. P., & Revlin, R. (2018). To detect or not to detect: A replication and extension of the three-stage model. Acta Psychologica, 187, 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.05.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szaszi, B., Szollosi, A., Palfi, B., & Aczel, B. (2017). The cognitive reflection test revisited: Exploring the ways individuals solve the test. Thinking & Reasoning, 23(3), 207–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teovanović, P. (2019). Dual processing in syllogistic reasoning: an individual differences perspective. Psihologijske Teme, 28(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.28.1.7
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, V. A., & Johnson, S. C. (2014). Conflict, metacognition, and analytic thinking. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 215–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, V. A., Pennycook, G., Trippas, D., & Evans, J. S. B. (2018). Do smart people have better intuitions? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(7), 945–961.
   PubMed 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomson, K. S., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2016). Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1), 99–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2011). The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Memory & Cognition, 39(7), 1275–1289.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Travers, E., Rolison, J. J., & Feeney, A. (2016). The time course of conflict on the Cognitive Reflection Test. Cognition, 150, 109–118.
   PubMed 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
• Welsh, M., Burns, N., & Delfabbro, P. (2013). The cognitive reflection test: How much more than numerical ability? In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 35, No. 35).
   Google Scholar