EXPRESS: The Bright Homunculus in our Head: Individual Differences in Intuitive Sensitivity to Logical Validity

2021 ◽  
pp. 174702182110446
Author(s):  
Omid Ghasemi ◽  
Simon J Handley ◽  
Stephanie Howarth
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Ability ◽  
Cognitive Style ◽  
Processing Time ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Human Reasoning ◽  
Logical Validity ◽  
Process Theories ◽  
Dual Process Theories ◽  
Deliberative Reasoning

Classic dual process theories of human reasoning attribute explicit reasoning to effortful, deliberative thinking. According to these models, intuitive processes lack any access to the formal rules of logic and probability and hence rely exclusively on superficial problem features to determine a response. However, in recent years, researchers have demonstrated that reasoners are able to solve simple logical or probabilistic problems relatively automatically, a capability which has been called ‘logical intuition’. In four experiments, we instructed participants to judge the validity (Experiments 1 and 4), likeability (Experiments 1, 2, and 3) and physical brightness (Experiments 2, 3, and 4) of the conclusion to several reasoning problems. Brightness judgments were made by evaluating the font shade brightness of the argument’s conclusion. Participants were also asked to complete a range of individual differences measures, drawing on cognitive ability and cognitive style, in order to evaluate the extent to which ‘logical intuitions’ were linked to measures of deliberative reasoning. The results showed that participants judged the conclusion of logically valid statements to be more valid, more likable and more physically bright. Participants with higher cognitive ability and unlimited processing time showed greater effects of logical validity in their liking judgments (varied across experiments). However, these effects were absent in the brightness tasks, suggesting that logic effects observed under instructions to judge conclusion brightness are a purer measure of ‘logical intuition’. We discuss the implications of our findings for recent dual process theories of human reasoning.

scholarly journals The Bright Homunculus in our Head: Individual Differences in Intuitive Sensitivity to Logical Validity

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omid Ghasemi ◽  
Simon Handley ◽  
Stephanie Howarth
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Ability ◽  
Cognitive Style ◽  
Processing Time ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Human Reasoning ◽  
Logical Validity ◽  
Process Theories ◽  
Dual Process Theories ◽  
Deliberative Reasoning

Classic dual process theories of human reasoning attribute explicit reasoning to effortful, deliberative thinking. According to these models, intuitive processes lack any access to the formal rules of logic and probability and hence rely exclusively on superficial problem features to determine a response. However, in recent years, researchers have demonstrated that reasoners are able to solve simple logical or probabilistic problems relatively automatically, a capability which has been called ‘logical intuition’. In four experiments, we instructed participants to judge the validity (Experiment 1 and 4), likeability (Experiment 1, 2, and 3) and brightness (Experiment 2, 3, and 4) of the conclusion to several reasoning problems. Participants were also asked to complete a range of individual differences measures, drawing on cognitive ability and cognitive style, in order to evaluate the extent to which ‘logical intuitions’ were linked to measures of deliberative reasoning. The results showed that participants judged the conclusion of logically valid statements to be more valid, more likable and more physically bright. Participants with higher cognitive ability and unlimited processing time showed greater effects of logical validity in their liking judgments. However, these effects were absent in the brightness tasks, suggesting that logic effects observed under instructions to judge conclusion brightness are a purer measure of ‘logical intuition’. We discuss the implications of our findings for recent dual process theories of human reasoning.

scholarly journals Individual differences in anchoring effect: Evidence for the role of insufficient adjustment

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Predrag Teovanović
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Process ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Systematic Effect ◽  
Human Reasoning ◽  
Anchoring Effect ◽  
Cognitive Reflection ◽  
Process Theories ◽  
Dual Process Theories

Although the anchoring effect is one of the most reliable results of experimental psychology, researchers have only recently begun to examine the role of individual differences in susceptibility to this cognitive bias. Yet, first correlational studies yielded inconsistent results, failing to identify any predictors that have a systematic effect on anchored decisions. The present research seeks to remedy methodological shortcomings of foregoing research by employing modified within-subject anchoring procedure. Results confirmed the robustness of phenomenon in extended paradigm and replicated previous findings on anchor’s direction and distance as significant experimental factors of the anchoring effect size. Obtained measures of individual differences in susceptibility to anchoring were fairly reliable but shared only small portion of variability with intelligence, cognitive reflection, and basic personality traits. However, in a group of more reflective subjects, substantial negative correlation between intelligence and anchoring was detected. This finding indicates that, at least for some subjects, effortful cognitive process of adjustment plays role in the emergence of the anchoring effect, which is in line with expectations of dual-process theories of human reasoning.

scholarly journals Categorization, Fast and Slow

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 205-212
Author(s):  
Василь Старко
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
New York ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Linguistics ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Psychological Review ◽  
Process Theories ◽  
Dual Process Theories

The title of this study is inspired by Daniel Kahneman’s best-selling book Thinking, Fast and Slow. In it, the Nobel Prize winner explains in great detail the working of two systems of human reasoning: System 1, which is fast, automatic, associative, subconscious, involuntary and (nearly) effortless, and System 2, which is slow, intentional, logical, conscious, effortful and requires executive control, attention, and concentration. This distinction applies to human categorization as well. Each of the two labels refers, in fact, to a set of systems, which is why the designations Type 1 and Type 2 processes are preferable. The default-interventionist architecture presupposes the constant automatic activation of categories by Type 1 processes and interventions of Type 2 processes if necessary. Type 1 categorization relies on the ‘shallow’ linguistic representation of the world, while Type 2 uses ‘deep’ extralinguistic knowledge. A series of linguistic examples are analyzed to illustrate the differences between Type 1 and Type 2 categorization. A conclusion is drawn about the need to take this distinction into account in psycholinguistic and linguistic research on categorization. References Barrett, F., Tugade, M. M., & Engle, R. (2004). Individual differences in working memorycapacity in dual-process theories of the mind. Psychological Bulletin, 130(4), 553–573. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. NewYork, NY: Guilford Press. Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlledcomponents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18. Evans, J. St. B. T., & Stanovich, K. (2013) Dual-process theories of higher cognition:Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. Geeraerts, D. (1993). Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics,4(3), 223–272. Heider, Eleanor Rosch (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semanticcategories. In: Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language, (pp. 111–144).T. E. Moore, (ed.). New York: Academic Press Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgement and choice. American Psychologist, 58,697–720. Kahneman, D. (2015). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitutionin intuitive judgement. In: Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment,(pp. 49–81). T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman, (eds.). Cambridge, MA: CambridgeUniversity Press. Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts.Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 458–508. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago, London: University ofChicago Press. Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge. Oxford, England: OxfordUniversity Press. Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is Rational? Studies of Individual Differences in Reasoning.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R F. (2000). Individual difference in reasoning: implications forthe rationality debate? Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–726. Старко В. Категоризаційні кваліфікатори// Проблеми зіставної семантики. 2013,№ 11. С. 132–138.Starko, V. (2013). Katehoryzatsiini kvalifikatory. Problemy Zistavnoyi Semantyky, 11,132–138. Sun, R., Slusarz, P., & Terry, C. (2005). The interaction of the explicit and the implicit inskill learning: A dual-process approach. Psychological Review, 112, 159–192. Teasdale, J. D. (1999). Multi-level theories of cognition–emotion relations. In: Handbookof Cognition and Emotion, (pp. 665–681). T. Dalgleish & M. J. Power, (eds.). Chichester,England: Wiley. Wason, P. C., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (1975). Dual processes in reasoning? Cognition, 3,141–154. Whorf, B. L. (1956). The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In:Language, Thought, and Reality. Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, (pp. 134–159). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press. (originally published in 1941) Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantic Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

The incommensurability of emergence and modularity in complex systems: A comment on Wastell (2014)

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 559-567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis H. Favela ◽  
Mary Jean Amon ◽  
Marieke M. J. W. van Rooij
Keyword(s):  
Complex Systems ◽  
Subjective Experience ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
State Transitions ◽  
Human Reasoning ◽  
Modular Systems ◽  
Process Theories ◽  
Dual Process Theories ◽  
Systems Framework ◽  
Interaction Problem

To answer the interaction problem, dual-process theories of reasoning must explain how seemingly disparate reasoning systems affect each other and underlie the apparent unity of subjective experience. Wastell (2014) proposes complex emergence modular theory, which asserts that complex virtual reasoning modules emerge from basic reasoning modules. We contend that Wastell’s proposal fails to address the interaction problem. First, we claim that the attempt to integrate emergence with virtual modules proliferates the interaction problem instead of solving it. Second, we argue that there is no interaction problem in human reasoning if “emergence” is employed in accordance with typical applications of complex systems theory in cognitive science and psychology. Alternatively, we suggest that in order to understand human reasoning within a complex systems framework, researchers should forego conceiving of reasoning as informationally encapsulated modular systems, and instead investigate system state transitions.

The Influence of Effortful Thought and Cognitive Proficiencies on the Conjunction Fallacy: Implications for Dual-Process Theories of Reasoning and Judgment

2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. 874-887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura D. Scherer ◽  
J. Frank Yates ◽  
S. Glenn Baker ◽  
Kathrene D. Valentine
Keyword(s):  
Conjunction Fallacy ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Dual Process Theory ◽  
Tripartite Model ◽  
Human Judgment ◽  
Conjunction Errors ◽  
Judgment Error ◽  
Process Theories ◽  
Dual Process Theories ◽  
Deliberative Reasoning

Human judgment often violates normative standards, and virtually no judgment error has received as much attention as the conjunction fallacy. Judgment errors have historically served as evidence for dual-process theories of reasoning, insofar as these errors are assumed to arise from reliance on a fast and intuitive mental process, and are corrected via effortful deliberative reasoning. In the present research, three experiments tested the notion that conjunction errors are reduced by effortful thought. Predictions based on three different dual-process theory perspectives were tested: lax monitoring, override failure, and the Tripartite Model. Results indicated that participants higher in numeracy were less likely to make conjunction errors, but this association only emerged when participants engaged in two-sided reasoning, as opposed to one-sided or no reasoning. Confidence was higher for incorrect as opposed to correct judgments, suggesting that participants were unaware of their errors.

scholarly journals Argumentation, rationality, and psychology of reasoning

2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 135 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Godden
Keyword(s):  
Dual Process ◽  
Cognitive Capacities ◽  
Psychological States ◽  
Psychology Of Reasoning ◽  
Process Theories ◽  
System 2 ◽  
The Common ◽  
Dual Process Theories ◽  
The Relationship

This paper explicates an account of argumentative rationality by articulating the common, basic idea of its nature, and then identifying a collection of assumptions inherent in it. Argumentative rationality is then contrasted with dual-process theories of reasoning and rationality prevalent in the psychology of reasoning. It is argued that argumentative rationality properly corresponds only with system-2 reasoning in dual-process theories. This result challenges the prescriptive force of argumentative norms derives if they derive at all from their descriptive accuracy of our cognitive capacities. In response, I propose an activity-based account of reasoning which retains the assumptions of argumentative rationality while recontextualizing the relationship between reasoning as a justificatory activity and the psychological states and processes underlying that activity.

scholarly journals Of two minds or one? A registered replication of Rydell et al. (2006)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Heycke ◽  
Sarah Marie Gehrmann ◽  
Julia M. Haaf ◽  
Christoph Stahl
Keyword(s):  
Impression Formation ◽  
Evaluative Conditioning ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Target Person ◽  
Implicit Measures ◽  
Process Theories ◽  
Dual Process Theories ◽  
Reliability And Robustness ◽  
Selective Influence ◽  
Behavioral Information

Evaluative conditioning (EC) is proposed as a mechanism of automatic preference acquisition in dual-process theories of attitudes (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006; Rydell & McConnell, 2006). Evidence for the automaticity of EC comes from studies claiming EC effects for subliminally presented stimuli. An impression-formation study by Rydell and colleagues (2006) showed a selective influence of briefly presented primes on implicitly measured attitudes, whereas supraliminally presented behavioral information about the target person was reflected in explicit ratings. This finding is considered one of the strongest pieces of evidence for dual process theories (Sweldens, Corneille, & Yzerbyt, 2014), and it is therefore crucial to assess its reliability and robustness. The present study presents two registered replications of the Rydell et al. (2006) study. In contrast to the original findings, the implicit measures did not reflect the valence of the subliminal primes in both studies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document