Examining the role of deliberation in de-bias training

References

• 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2018.1507949
   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
• 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
• Bourgeois-Gironde, S., & Van Der Henst, J. B. (2009). How to open the door to System 2: Debiasing the bat-and-ball problem.
   Google Scholar
• Chein, J. M., & Weisberg, R. W. (2014). Working memory and insight in verbal problems: Analysis of compound remote associates. Memory & Cognition, 42(1), 67–83. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421013-0343-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claidière, N., Trouche, E., & Mercier, H. (2017). Argumentation and the diffusion of counter-intuitive beliefs. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 146(7), 1052–1066. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000323
   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 (2006), 59(6), 1070–1100. https://doi.org/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: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 7(1), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611429354
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Neys, W. (2017). Bias, conflict, and fast logic. In W. De Neys (Éd.), Dual process theory 2.0. (1re éd., pp. 47–65). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315204550-4
   Google Scholar
• De Neys, W. (2021). On dual-and single-process models of thinking. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 16(6), 1412–1427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620964172
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Neys, W., & Bonnefon, J.-F. (2013). The ‘whys’ and ‘whens’ of individual differences in thinking biases. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(4), 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.02.001
   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
• Devis, D. (2021). Why are there so many vaccinated people in hospital?. https://cosmosmagazine.com/health/covid/why-are-there-so-many-vaccinated-people-in-hospital/
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, J. J., Glaholt, M. G., & Reingold, E. M. (2011). Eye movements reveal solution knowledge prior to insight. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(3), 768–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.12.007
   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(1), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019). Reflections on reflection: The nature and function of type 2 processes in dual-process theories of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 25(4), 383–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2019.1623071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science: a Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Franssens, S., & De Neys, W. (2009). The effortless nature of conflict detection during thinking. Thinking & Reasoning, 15(2), 105–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780802711185
   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
• Ghasemi, O., Handley, S., Howarth, S., Newman, I. R., & Thompson, V. A. (2022). Logical intuition is not really about logic. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 151(9), 2009–2028. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001179
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoover, J., & Healy, A. (2017). Algebraic reasoning and bat-and-ball problem variants: Solving isomorphic algebra first facilitates problem solving later. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(6), 1922–1928. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1241-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoover, J., & Healy, A. (2019). The bat-and-ball problem: Stronger evidence in support of a conscious error process. Decision (Washington, D.C.), 6(4), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000107
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Johnson, E. D., Tubau, E., & De Neys, W. (2016). The Doubting System 1 : Evidence for automatic substitution sensitivity. Acta Psychologica, 164, 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.12.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Strauss, Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited : Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Éds.), Heuristics and biases (1re éd., pp. 49–81). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098.004
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence, M. A., & Lawrence, M. M. A. (2016). Package ‘ez. R Package Version 4.0.
   Google Scholar
• Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & Landfield, K. (2009). Giving debiasing away : Can psychological research on correcting cognitive errors promote human welfare? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 390–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01144.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markovits, H., de Chantal, P.-L., Brisson, J., & Gagnon-St-Pierre, E. (2019). The development of fast and slow inferential responding: Evidence for a parallel development of rule-based and belief-based intuitions. Memory & Cognition, 47(6), 1188–1200. https:// https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00927-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Claidière, N. (2022). Does discussion make crowds any wiser? Cognition, 222, 104912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104912
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The enigma of reason. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Milkman, K. L., Chugh, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). How can decision making be improved? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 379–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01142.x
   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
• Morewedge, C. K., &Kahneman, D. (2010). Associative processes in intuitive judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 435–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.07.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morewedge, C. K., Yoon, H., Scopelliti, I., Symborski, C. W., Korris, J. H., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Debiasing decisions: Improved decision making with a single training intervention. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215600886
   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
• Purcell, Z. A., Wastell, C. A., & Sweller, N. (2021). Domain-specific experience and dual-process thinking. Thinking & Reasoning, 27(2), 239–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1793813
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2022). 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500003405
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raoelison, M., Boissin, E., Borst, G., & Neys, W. D. (2021b). From slow to fast logic: The development of logical intuitions. Thinking & Reasoning, 27(4), 599–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2021.1885488
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raoelison, M., Keime, M., & De Neys, W. (2021a). Think slow, then fast: Does repeated deliberation boost correct intuitive responding? Memory & Cognition, 49(5), 873–883. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01140-x
   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
• Stagnaro, M., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test is stable across time. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(3), 260–267. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500007695
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. (2011). Rationality and the reflective mind. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. (2018). Miserliness in human cognition: The interaction of detection, override and mindware. Thinking & Reasoning, 24(4), 423–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2018.1459314
   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
• Stuyck, H., Aben, B., Cleeremans, A., & Van den Bussche, E. (2021). The Aha! moment: Is insight a different form of problem solving? Consciousness and Cognition, 90, 103055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2020.103055
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, V. A., Pennycook, G., Trippas, D., & Evans, J. S. B. T. (2018). Do smart people have better intuitions? Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 147(7), 945–961. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000457
   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. 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
• Topolinski, S., & Reber, R. (2010). Gaining insight into the “Aha” experience. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(6), 402–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410388803
   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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.01.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trouche, E., Sander, E., & Mercier, H. (2014). Arguments, more than confidence, explain the good performance of reasoning groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 143(5), 1958–1971. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037099
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickham, H. (2009). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer New York.
   Google Scholar
• Wickham, H., & Wickham, M. H. (2017). Package ‘tidyr’. Easily Tidy Data with ‘spread’ and ‘gather ()’ Functions.
   Google Scholar