No easy fix for belief bias during syllogistic reasoning?

References

• Adame, B. J. (2016). Training in the mitigation of anchoring bias: A test of the consider the-opposite strategy. Learning and Motivation, 53, 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2015.11.002
   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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2018.1507949
   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, Article 104645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104645
   Google Scholar
• Boissin, E., Caparos, S., Voudouri, A., & De Neys, W. (2022). Debiasing system 1: Training favours logical over stereotypical intuiting. Judgment and Decision Making, 17(4), 646–690. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500008895
   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. In S. Watanabe, A. P. Bloisdell, L. Huber, & A. Young (Eds.), Rational animals, irrational humans (pp. 235–252). Keio University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brisson, J., Schaeken, W., Markovits, H., & De Neys, W. (2018). Conflict detection and logical complexity. Psychologica Belgica, 58(1), 318. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.448
   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, 59(6), 1070–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980543000123
   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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015954
   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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.002
   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. https://doi.org/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(5), 483–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02113.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eberhardt, J. L., Davies, P. G., Purdie-Vaughns, V. J., & Johnson, S. L. (2006). Looking deathworthy : Perceived stereotypicality of black defendants predicts capital-sentencing outcomes. Psychological Science, 17(5), 383–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01716.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. (2003). In two minds : Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 454–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012
   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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2019.1623071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B., Newstead, S. E., Allen, J. L., & Pollard, P. (1994). Debiasing by instruction : The case of belief bias. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 6(3), 263–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541449408520148
   Web of Science ®Google 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
• 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
• Frey, D. P., Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2017). Commentary : Seeing the conflict: An attentional account of reasoning errors. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1284. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01284
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao, Q., & Liu, X. (2021). Stand against anti-Asian racial discrimination during COVID-19 : A call for action. International Social Work, 64(2), 261–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872820970610
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirt, E. R., & Markman, K. D. (1995). Multiple explanation: A consider-an-alternative strategy for debiasing judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1069. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogarth, R. M. (2001). Educating intuition. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hoover, J. D., & Healy, A. F. (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. D., & Healy, A. F. (2019). The Bat-and-ball problem: Stronger evidence in support of a conscious error process. Decision, 6(4), 369. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isler, O., Yılmaz, O., & Doğruyol, B. (2020). Activating reflective thinking with decision justification and debiasing training. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(6), 926–938. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500008147
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Strauss, Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., Slovic, S. P., Slovic, P., Tversky, A., & Press, C. U. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty : Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Koller, J. E., Villinger, K., Lages, N. C., Brünecke, I., Debbeler, J. M., Engel, K. D., Grieble, S., Homann, P. C., Kaufmann, R., Koppe, K. M., Oppenheimer, H., Radtke, V. C., Rogula, S., Stähler, J., Renner, B., & Schupp, H. T. (2021). Stigmatization of Chinese and Asian-looking people during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11270-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Mata, A. (2020). An easy fix for reasoning errors : Attention capturers improve reasoning performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(10), 1695–1702. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820931499
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mata, A., Fiedler, K., Ferreira, M. B., & Almeida, T. (2013). Reasoning about others’ reasoning. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 486–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.01.010
   Web of Science ®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., 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
• Newstead, S. E., Pollard, P., Evans, J. S. B., & Allen, J. L. (1992). The source of belief bias effects in syllogistic reasoning. Cognition, 45(3), 257–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90019-E
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbett, R. E. (1993). Rules for reasoning. Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oakhill, J., Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Garnham, A. (1989). Believability and syllogistic reasoning. Cognition, 31(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(89)90020-6
   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
• Purcell, Z. A., Wastell, C. A., & Sweller, N. (2020). 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
• Raoelison, M., & De Neys, W. (2019). Do we debias 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., Keime, M., & De Neys, W. (2021). 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
• Raoelison, M., Thompson, V. A., & De Neys, W. (2020). The smart intuitor : Cognitive capacity predicts intuitive rather than deliberate thinking. Cognition, 204, Article 104381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104381
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reis, J., Ferreira, M. B., Mata, A., Seruti, A., & Garcia-Marques, L. (2023). Anchoring in a Social Context: How the Possibility of Being Misinformed by Others Impacts One's Judgment. Social Cognition, 41(1), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2023.41.1.67
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E. (2011). Rationality and the reflective mind. Oxford University Press.
   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
• 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
• Verschueren, N., Schaeken, W., & d’Ydewalle, G. (2004). Everyday conditional reasoning with working memory preload. Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 26(26), 1399–1404. https://escholarship.org/content/qt7kk1x3qx/qt7kk1x3qx.pdf
   Google Scholar