Fast logic?: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory

Influential dual process models of human thinking posit that reasoners typically produce a fast, intuitive heuristic (i.e., Type-1) response which might subsequently be overridden and corrected by slower, deliberative processing (i.e., Type-2). In this study we directly tested this time course assumption. We used a two response paradigm in which participants have to give an immediate answer and afterwards are allowed extra time before giving a final response. In four experiments we used a range of procedures (e.g., challenging response deadline, concurrent load) to knock out Type 2 processing and make sure that the initial response was intuitive in nature. Our key finding is that we frequently observe correct, logical responses as the first, immediate response. Response confidence and latency analyses indicate that these initial correct responses are given fast, with high confidence, and in the face of conflicting heuristic responses. Findings suggest that fast and automatic Type 1 processing also cues a correct logical response from the start. We sketch a revised dual process model in which the relative strength of different types of intuitions determines reasoning performance.

[1]  Wim De Neys,et al.  The effortless nature of conflict detection during thinking , 2009 .

[2]  Yadin Dudai,et al.  Memory Retrieval in Mice and Men. , 2015, Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology.

[3]  Ben R. Newell,et al.  In conflict with ourselves? An investigation of heuristic and analytic processes in decision making , 2010, Memory & cognition.

[4]  Jonathan J. Rolison,et al.  The time course of conflict on the Cognitive Reflection Test , 2016, Cognition.

[5]  Wim De Neys,et al.  Dual processing in reasoning: two systems but one reasoner. , 2006, Psychological science.

[6]  Leif D. Nelson,et al.  False-Positive Psychology , 2011, Psychological science.

[7]  Carl Martin Allwood,et al.  The accuracy of meta-metacognitive judgments: regulating the realism of confidence , 2012, Cognitive Processing.

[8]  K. C. Klauer,et al.  Does logic feel good? Testing for intuitive detection of logicality in syllogistic reasoning. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[9]  John R. Anderson,et al.  RECOGNITION AND RETRIEVAL PROCESSES IN FREE RECALL , 1972 .

[10]  S. Handley,et al.  Dual processes and the interplay between knowledge and structure: A new parallel processing model , 2015 .

[11]  W. Schaeken,et al.  When people are more logical under cognitive load: dual task impact on scalar implicature. , 2007, Experimental psychology.

[12]  S. Handley,et al.  Logic feels so good-I like it! Evidence for intuitive detection of logicality in syllogistic reasoning. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  Kinga Morsanyi,et al.  Analytic thinking: do you feel like it? , 2012 .

[14]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment , 2002 .

[15]  K. C. Klauer,et al.  Intuitive Logic Revisited: New Data and a Bayesian Mixed Model Meta-Analysis , 2014, PloS one.

[16]  Wim De Neys,et al.  Automatic-heuristic and executive-analytic processing during reasoning: Chronometric and dual-task considerations. , 2006 .

[17]  J. Dessalles,et al.  Arguing, reasoning, and the interpersonal (cultural) functions of human consciousness , 2011, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[18]  Wim De Neys,et al.  Conflict detection, dual processes, and logical intuitions: Some clarifications , 2014 .

[19]  Arie W Kruglanski,et al.  Only One? The Default Interventionist Perspective as a Unimodel—Commentary on Evans & Stanovich (2013) , 2013, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[20]  S. Sloman,et al.  Base-rate respect: From ecological rationality to dual processes. , 2007, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[21]  L. Macchi,et al.  When analytic thought is challenged by a misunderstanding , 2015 .

[22]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Presentation and content: The use of base rates as a continuous variable. , 1988 .

[23]  Jonathan Evans,et al.  Science Perspectives on Psychological , 2022 .

[24]  W. Neys,et al.  Feeling we’re biased: Autonomic arousal and reasoning conflict , 2010, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[25]  S. Frederick Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 19, Number 4—Fall 2005—Pages 25–42 Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making , 2022 .

[26]  Stephen M. Johnson,et al.  Conflict, metacognition, and analytic thinking , 2014 .

[27]  Yue Zhen-zhu Anterior Cingulate Cortex and Conflict Control , 2005 .

[28]  Jonathan Evans Thinking Twice: Two minds in one brain , 2010 .

[29]  Valerie A. Thompson,et al.  Intuition, reason, and metacognition , 2011, Cognitive Psychology.

[30]  V. Goel,et al.  Smarter Than We Think , 2008, Psychological science.

[31]  S. Handley,et al.  Logic brightens my day: Evidence for implicit sensitivity to logical validity. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[32]  S. Sloman The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. , 1996 .

[33]  W. Neys Chapter One – Heuristic Bias and Conflict Detection During Thinking , 2015 .

[34]  Simon Handley,et al.  Does thinking make you biased? The case of the engineers and lawyers problem , 2012, CogSci.

[35]  K. Stanovich Rationality and the Reflective Mind , 2010 .

[36]  Wim De Neys,et al.  Dual Processing in Reasoning , 2006, Psychological science.

[37]  Jonathan A. Fugelsang,et al.  What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement , 2015, Cognitive Psychology.

[38]  Gordon Pennycook,et al.  Reasoning with base rates is routine, relatively effortless, and context dependent , 2012, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[39]  Emmanuel Trouche,et al.  Arguments, more than confidence, explain the good performance of reasoning groups. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[40]  David A. Rettinger,et al.  How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[41]  V. Thompson,et al.  Base rates: both neglected and intuitive. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[42]  O. Houdé,et al.  Bats, balls, and substitution sensitivity: cognitive misers are no happy fools , 2013, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[43]  K. Stanovich,et al.  Defining features versus incidental correlates of Type 1 and Type 2 processing , 2012 .

[44]  Wim De Neys Bias and Conflict , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[45]  D. Kahneman Thinking, Fast and Slow , 2011 .

[46]  Jason W. Brown What Makes Us Think , 2003 .

[47]  G. Villejoubert Are representativeness judgments automatic and rapid? The effect of time pressure on the conjunction fallacy , 2009 .

[48]  Jonathan Evans,et al.  Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning , 2005 .

[49]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[50]  Jonathan A. Fugelsang,et al.  Are we good at detecting conflict during reasoning? , 2012, Cognition.

[51]  O. Houdé,et al.  Anterior cingulate cortex and intuitive bias detection during number conservation , 2015, Cognitive neuroscience.

[52]  B. Aczel,et al.  Lax monitoring versus logical intuition: The determinants of confidence in conjunction fallacy , 2016 .

[53]  Jonathan A. Fugelsang,et al.  Cognitive style and religiosity: The role of conflict detection , 2013, Memory & Cognition.

[54]  Dries Trippas,et al.  Logic, beliefs, and instruction: a test of the default interventionist account of belief bias. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[55]  Linden J. Ball,et al.  Matching bias in syllogistic reasoning: Evidence for a dual-process account from response times and confidence ratings , 2013 .

[56]  Sascha Topolinski,et al.  The architecture of intuition: Fluency and affect determine intuitive judgments of semantic and visual coherence and judgments of grammaticality in artificial grammar learning. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[57]  K. Stanovich,et al.  Advancing the rationality debate , 2000, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[58]  Wim De Neys,et al.  Conflict monitoring in dual process theories of thinking , 2008, Cognition.

[59]  F. Mancini,et al.  Feelings of error in reasoning—in search of a phenomenon , 2015 .

[60]  V. Thompson,et al.  Rule-Based Reasoning Is Fast and Belief-Based Reasoning Can Be Slow: Challenging Current Explanations of Belief-Bias and Base-Rate Neglect , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[61]  L R Squire,et al.  On the relationship between recall and recognition memory. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[62]  Jonathan St. B. T. Evans,et al.  Spot the difference: distinguishing between two kinds of processing , 2012, Mind & Society.

[63]  W. Bottom Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive JudgmentHeuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, edited by Gilovich Thomas Griffin Dale Kahneman Daniel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. , 2004 .

[64]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[65]  S. Epstein Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. , 1994, The American psychologist.