scholarly journals Individual differences in logical intuitions on reasoning problems presented under two-response paradigm

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roman Burič ◽  
Jakub Šrol
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Individual Difference ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Detection Efficiency ◽  
Initial Response ◽  
Conflict Detection ◽  
Process Models ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Cognitive Reflection ◽  
The Individual

Studies on individual differences in susceptibility to cognitive biases have identified several cognitive dispositions which were thought to predict reasoning by contributing to the efficiency of analytic thought. Recently formulated hybrid models, however, suggest that substantial differences between reasoners may arise early already in the intuitive stages of the reasoning process. To address this possibility, we examined standard individual difference measures, mindware instantiation, and conflict detection efficiency as predictors of the accuracy on conflict reasoning problems presented under a two-response paradigm. This was intended to tease apart the predictors of intuitive responding from those factors which only contribute to reasoning when participants have enough time for analytic engagement. We found that participants correctly solved almost half of conflict reasoning problems already at the initial response stage and that the individual differences in initial reasoning performance were predicted by their cognitive reflection, mindware instantiation, and detection efficiency. The findings advance the specification of hybrid dual-process models and provide corroborating evidence that a part of the link between bias susceptibility and cognitive dispositions is due to differences in intuitive processing.

scholarly journals Predicting individual differences in conflict detection and bias susceptibility during reasoning

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jakub Šrol ◽  
Wim De Neys
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Ability ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Detection Efficiency ◽  
Conflict Detection ◽  
Process Models ◽  
Thinking Dispositions ◽  
Cognitive Reflection

One of the key components of the susceptibility to cognitive biases is the ability to monitor for conflict that may arise between intuitively cued “heuristic” answers and logical principles. While there is evidence that people differ in their ability to detect such conflicts, it is not clear which individual factors are driving these differences. In the present large-scale study (N = 399) we explored the role of cognitive ability, thinking dispositions, numeracy, cognitive reflection, and mindware instantiation (i.e. knowledge of logical principles) as potential predictors of individual differences in conflict detection ability and overall accuracy on a battery of reasoning problems. Results showed that mindware instantiation was the single best predictor of both conflict detection efficiency and reasoning accuracy. Cognitive reflection, thinking dispositions, numeracy, and cognitive ability played a significant but smaller role. The full regression model accounted for 40% of the variance in overall reasoning accuracy, but only 7% of the variance in conflict detection efficiency. We discuss the implications of these findings for popular process models of bias susceptibility.

scholarly journals Mindware instantiation as a predictor of logical intuitions in the Cognitive Reflection Test

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roman Burič ◽  
Ľubica Konrádová
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Theoretical Model ◽  
Detection Efficiency ◽  
Initial Response ◽  
Conflict Detection ◽  
Cognitive Reflection Test ◽  
Cognitive Reflection ◽  
Growing Body ◽  
Main Attribute

Following the growing body of evidence suggesting that substantial individual differences in reasoning exist already at early stages of the reasoning process and that reasoners might be able to produce logical intuitions, the model of mindware automatization posits that the mindware acquired to the extent that it is fully automatized can cue the logically correct type 1 response. In this study, we asked participants to solve the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) presented under the two-response paradigm. Among individual difference factors, we measured mindware instantiation and conflict detection efficiency. These variables explained approximately 10% of the variance in the accuracy of intuitive answers. We also observed that in more than half of cases, the correct response was already correct at the initial response stage. These results are in line with the theoretical model of mindware automatization to a large extent and raise a question about the main attribute of the CRT. Keywords: cognitive reflection, mindware, conflict detection, logical intuition, two-response paradigm

scholarly journals Dual Processing in Syllogistic Reasoning

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-145
Author(s):  
Predrag Teovanović
Keyword(s):  
Individual Difference ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Task Complexity ◽  
Conflict Detection ◽  
Syllogistic Reasoning ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Dual Processing ◽  
Cognitive Reflection Test ◽  
Cognitive Reflection ◽  
Reasoning Tasks

The study aimed to examine several assumptions of dual process theories of reasoning by employing individual difference approach. A set of categorical syllogisms was administered to a relatively large sample of participants (N = 247) along with attached confidence rating scales, and measures of intelligence and cognitive reflection. As expected, response accuracy on syllogistic reasoning tasks highly depended on task complexity and the status of belief-logic conflict, thus demonstrating beliefbias on the group level. Individual difference analyses showed that more biased subject also performed poorer on Raven's Matrices (r = .25) and Cognitive Reflection Test (r = .27), which is in line with assumptions that willingness to engage and capacities to carry out type 2 processes both contribute to understanding of rational thinking. Moreover, measures of cognitive decoupling were significantly correlated with the performance on conflict syllogisms (r = .20). Individual differences in sensitivity to conflict detection, on the other side, were not related to reasoning accuracy in general (r = .02). Yet, additional analyses showed that noteworthy correlation between these two can be observed for easier syllogistic reasoning tasks (r = .26). Such results indicate that boundary conditions of conflict detection should be viewed as a function of both tasks' and participants' characteristics.

scholarly journals Is Automation of Statistical Reasoning a Suitable Mindware in a Base-Rate Neglect Task?

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 447-466
Author(s):  
Klara Rapan ◽  
Pavle Valerjev
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Detection Efficiency ◽  
Conflict Detection ◽  
Base Rate ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Statistical Reasoning ◽  
Reasoning Test ◽  
Base Rate Neglect ◽  
Task Efficiency ◽  
The Relationship

Until recently, studies within the dual-process approach were mainly focused on group differences in processing, and individual differences were neglected. However, individual differences have proven to be a significant factor in conflict detection efficiency and the overall success in base-rate neglect and similar tasks. This should be taken into consideration within the framework of the Hybrid Model of Dual Processing. New tendencies in the development of this model have focused attention on the degree of mindware instantiation as a predictor of base-rate neglect task efficiency. This study aimed to examine the relationship between mindware and base-rate neglect task efficiency and to test and explore the relationship between base-rate response frequency and conflict detection efficiency and the degree of mindware instantiation. All participants solved base-rate neglect tasks, made judgments of confidence in their responses, and solved the Statistical Reasoning Test, Cognitive Reflection Test and Numeracy Scale. We used the Statistical Reasoning Test as a measure of mindware instantiation. The degree of mindware instantiation was found to be the only significant predictor of base-rate neglect task efficiency and the results showed that participants with a higher degree of mindware instantiation generally made more base-rate responses. No correlation was found between the degree of mindware instantiation and conflict detection efficiency. These findings support the hypothesis that the power of logical intuition depends on the individual’s degree of mindware instantiation. Therefore, the results of this research indicate the importance of further research into the role of statistical reasoning in base-rate neglect task efficiency. However, we discuss that there are some methodological limitations in this research which might explain why the degree of mindware instantiation had no relationship with conflict efficiency.

Cognitive Reflection Effects on Time Discounting

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michał Białek ◽  
Przemysław Sawicki
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Individual Difference ◽  
Delay Discounting ◽  
Reference Point ◽  
Reference Points ◽  
Cognitive Reflection Test ◽  
Process Information ◽  
Time Discounting ◽  
Cognitive Reflection ◽  
The Way

Abstract. In this work, we investigated individual differences in cognitive reflection effects on delay discounting – a preference for smaller sooner over larger later payoff. People are claimed to prefer more these alternatives they considered first – so-called reference point – over the alternatives they considered later. Cognitive reflection affects the way individuals process information, with less reflective individuals relying predominantly on the first information they consider, thus, being more susceptible to reference points as compared to more reflective individuals. In Experiment 1, we confirmed that individuals who scored high on the Cognitive Reflection Test discount less strongly than less reflective individuals, but we also show that such individuals are less susceptible to imposed reference points. Experiment 2 replicated these findings additionally providing evidence that cognitive reflection predicts discounting strength and (in)dependency to reference points over and above individual difference in numeracy.

scholarly journals A Study of Educational Achievement of Standard XI Students in Context of their Learning Style in Reference to Area

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ajay B. Raval
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Learning Style ◽  
Individual Difference ◽  
Educational Achievement ◽  
Visual Learning ◽  
Learning Style Inventory ◽  
Kinesthetic Learning ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Selection Of

In the Era of Change, teacher should consider the individual differences while teaching in the classroom. In fact teacher must keep in mind the individual differences for teaching. Students have so many talent, we as a teacher must have that angel of view of identifying it. This individual difference can be divided in dimension of Learning Style, too. Researcher was giving service in High School as a teacher, he observe such an Individual difference in context to learning style in class room. Is there any relationship between Educational Achievement and Learning Style? Is there any effect of Learning Style on Educational Achievement in reference to Area? To find the answer of this question present study was conducted. Population & Sample: Population for present study was students studying in Standard-XI of Gujarati Medium School of Gandhinagar District. The selection of schools was by Stratified Randomization Technique and selection of students was selected by Cluster Method. In last, the Sample size was 607. Method: Survey Method was used for Data Collection. Tool: Self constructed Learning Style Inventory (L.S.I.) was used for Data Collection. Learning Style Inventory (L.S.I.) was three Point Likert type Scale. Findings: 1) There was no significance different in educational achievement among students having Visual Learning Style, Auditorial Learning Style and Kinesthetic Learning Style. 2) In matter of educational achievement, students of Rural are superior to students of Urban among students having Visual Learning Style. 3) In matter of educational achievement, students of Rural are superior to students of Urban among students having Auditorial Learning Style. 4) In matter of educational achievement, students of Urban are superior to students of Rural among students having Kinesthetic Learning Style.

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.

Individual differences in negotiation: A relational process model

2020 ◽  
pp. 204138662096255
Author(s):  
Hillary Anger Elfenbein
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Individual Difference ◽  
Process Model ◽  
Past Research ◽  
Complex Interplay ◽  
Traditional Treatment ◽  
Behavioral Dynamics ◽  
Negotiation Performance ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Relational Process

Intuition suggests that individual differences should play an important role in negotiation performance, and yet empirical results have been relatively weak. Because negotiations are inherently dyadic, the dyad needs to feature prominently in theorizing. In expanding the traditional treatment of individual differences to two systematically interconnected parties, a relational process model (RPM) emerges. The RPM illustrates how the individual differences of both negotiators spark complex behavioral dynamics through five distinct theoretical mechanisms. Individuals (a) select each other, (b) set expectancies for each other, (c) serve as behavioral triggers and affordances for each other, (d) reciprocate and complement each other’s behaviors, and (e) vary in their responses to identical behaviors. It also directs attention to new classes and dimensions of individual difference factors. The RPM helps explain why past research has been highly conservative. A more complete picture needs to incorporate the complex interplay starting with parties’ individual differences.

Subject-Task Interaction in Selective Attention Research

1973 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 259-262
Author(s):  
Steven Jay Gross ◽  
Samuel F. Moore ◽  
Stephen L. Stern
Keyword(s):  
Information Processing ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Selective Attention ◽  
Individual Difference ◽  
The Other ◽  
Human Information Processing ◽  
Task Variables ◽  
The One ◽  
The Individual

Two methods of investigating human information processing, the one focusing on the manipulation of experimental tasks and the other emphasizing individual differences, were compared. The design utilized the experimental tasks of Treisman and Riley (1969) while examining for individual differences on the basis of Witkin's field-articulation dimension. The findings of Treisman and Riley were replicated, while no differences were found among Ss categorized on the individual-difference dimension, suggesting that task variables were most important in performance requiring selective attention.

scholarly journals Individual Differences in Language Learning and Teaching: a Complex/Dynamic/Socio-Ecological/Holistic View

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Griffiths ◽  
Adem Soruç
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Individual Difference ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Complex Dynamic ◽  
Holistic View ◽  
Learning And Teaching ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Teachers Perspectives

AbstractThis article begins by outlining the development of the individual difference concept, considering what should be included as an individual difference, and suggesting a definition. The authors then suggest 11 individual differences which occur regularly in the literature and which they have found to be salient features in their own classrooms. A brief overview of these 11 factors is provided, along with theoretical perspectives relevant to the individual differences issue. The article concludes with a small-scale investigation of teachers’ perspectives of the importance of individual differences in language learning. According to the results, teachers consider motivation and strategy use the most important variables, but that all 11 factors are at least somewhat important. This conclusion emphasizes the need for a holistic view of these complex/dynamic, socio-ecologically influenced phenomena.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document