Bias detection: Response confidence evidence for conflict sensitivity in the ratio bias task

REFERENCES

• Ball, L. J. (2013). Microgenetic evidence for the beneficial effects of feedback and practice on belief bias. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 183–191. doi:10.1080/20445911.2013.765856
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball, L. J., Phillips, P., Wade, C. N., & Quayle, J. D. (2006). Effects of belief and logic on syllogistic reasoning: Eye-movement evidence for selective processing models. Experimental Psychology, 53, 77–86. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.53.1.77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonner, C., & Newell, B. R. (2010). In conflict with ourselves? An investigation of heuristic and analytic processes in decision making. Memory & Cognition, 38, 186–196. doi:10.3758/MC.38.2.186
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cokely, E. T., Galesic, M., Schultz, 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
• 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, 169–187. doi:10.1080/13546783.2013.854725
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neys, W., & Bonnefon, J.-F. (2013). The ‘whys’ and ‘whens’ of individual differences in thinking biases. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 172–178. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.02.001
   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.pone.0015954.s002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neys, W., & Feremans, V. (2013). Development of heuristic bias detection in elementary school. Developmental Psychology, 49, 258–269. doi:10.1037/a0028320
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neys, W., & Franssens, S. (2009). Belief inhibition during thinking: Not always winning but at least taking part. Cognition, 113(1), 45–61. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.07.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neys, W., & Glumicic, T. (2008). Conflict monitoring in dual process theories of thinking. Cognition, 106, 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, 208–216. doi:10.3758/CABN.10.2.208
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neys, W., Novitskiy, N., Ramautar, J., & Wagemans, J. (2010). What makes a good reasoner?: Brain potentials and heuristic bias susceptibility. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 32, 1020–1025.
   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, 269–273. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0384-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neys, W., Vartanian, O., & Goel, V. (2008). Smarter than we think: When our brains detect that we are biased. Psychological Science, 19, 483–489. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02113.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denes-Raj, V., & Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 819–829. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.819
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. The American Psychologist, 49, 709–724. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.49.8.709
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 454–459. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012
   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. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T. (2010). Intuition and reasoning: A dual-process perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 313–326. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2010.521057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning (p. 179). Hove: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Franssens, S., & De Neys, W. (2009). The effortless nature of conflict detection during thinking. Thinking & Reasoning, 15, 105–128. doi:10.1080/13546780802711185
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houdé, O. (2007). First insights on “neuropedagogy of reasoning”. Thinking & Reasoning, 13, 81–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2000). A psychological point of view: Violations of rational rules as a diagnostic of mental processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 681–683. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00403432
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited : Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 267–273). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237–251. doi:10.1037/h0034747
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klauer, K. C., & Singmann, H. (2013). Does logic feel good? Testing for intuitive detection of logicality in syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1265–1273. doi:10.1037/a0030530
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liberali, J. M., Reyna, V. F., Furlan, S., Stein, L. M., & Pardo, S. T. (2012). Individual differences in numeracy and cognitive reflection, with implications for biases and fallacies in probability judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25, 361–381. doi:10.1002/bdm.752
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mata, A., Schubert, A.-L., & Ferreira, M. B. (2014). The role of language comprehension in reasoning: How “good-enough” representations induce biases. Cognition, 133, 457–463. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.07.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morsanyi, K., & Handley, S. (2012). Does thinking make you biased? The case of the engineers and lawyer problem. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science society, 34, 2049–2054.
   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. doi: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. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudski, J. M., & Volksdorf, J. (2002). Pictorial versus textual information and the ratio-bias effect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 547–554. doi:10.2466/pms.2002.95.2.547
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singmann, H., Klauer, K. C., & Kellen, D. (2014). Intuitive logic revisited: New data and a Bayesian mixed model meta-analysis. PLoS One, 9, e94223. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094223
   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
• Stanovich, K. (2010). Rationality and the reflective mind (p. 344). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., Toplak, M. E., & West, R. F. (2008). The development of rational thought: A taxonomy of heuristics and biases. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 36, 251–285. doi:10.1016/S0065-2407(08)00006-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–665. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00003435
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 672–695. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.672
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2011). The complexity of developmental predictions from dual process models. Developmental Review, 31(2–3), 103–118. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2011.07.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stupple, E. J. N., & Ball, L. J. (2008). Belief–logic conflict resolution in syllogistic reasoning: Inspection-time evidence for a parallel-process model. Thinking & Reasoning, 14, 168–181. doi:10.1080/13546780701739782
   Web of Science ®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. doi:10.1080/13546783.2012.735622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stupple, E. J. N., Ball, L. J., Evans, J. S. B. T., & Kamal-Smith, E. (2011). When logic and belief collide: Individual differences in reasoning times support a selective processing model. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23, 931–941. doi:10.1080/20445911.2011.589381
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, V. A., & Johnson, S. C. (2014). Conflict, metacognition, and analytic thinking. Thinking & Reasoning, 20, 215–244. doi:10.1080/13546783.2013.869763
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villejoubert, G. (2009). Are representativeness judgments automatic and rapid ? The effect of time pressure on the conjunction fallacy. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2980–2985.
   Google Scholar