2023
DOI: 10.1016/bs.aesp.2022.11.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A framework for understanding reasoning errors: From fake news to climate change and beyond

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
43
0
8

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 388 publications
3
43
0
8
Order By: Relevance
“…Our research also speaks to the role of cognitive sophistication in the success of deliberation—an aspect that has been key to recent developments in the dual-process literature ( 29 , 42 , 43 , 67 ). Two distinct factors that are often mentioned as key to the success of deliberation are fluid intelligence (i.e.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our research also speaks to the role of cognitive sophistication in the success of deliberation—an aspect that has been key to recent developments in the dual-process literature ( 29 , 42 , 43 , 67 ). Two distinct factors that are often mentioned as key to the success of deliberation are fluid intelligence (i.e.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…In fact, such strategies will only serve to increase partisan differences ( 10 , 23 , 24 ) (although there is evidence questioning this assumption ( 25–27 )). Furthermore, from a theoretical perspective, this “MS2R” account stands in stark contrast to a common dual-process perspective—the “classical reasoning” view—whereby system 2 reasoning is thought to typically facilitate accuracy in a variety of decision-making tasks ( 18 , 28 , 29 ). Put differently, the classical reasoning account posits that when people engage in deliberation, they tend to form more accurate beliefs, regardless of the partisan or identity alignment of the propositions that they are deliberating about ( 29 , 30 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Although these are interesting to study thinking in a controlled setting it is also clear that in daily life we typically do not reason about the cost of a bat and a ball or whether we should push a fat man off a footbridge. Focusing on informal argumentation and communication (e.g., Oaksford ; Hahn, 2020; Mercier, 2021) or attempts to use a dual-process approach to study science misperception and misinformation spreading (e.g., Pennycook [2023], for an excellent overview) might prove especially relevant here. I agree that this remains an important challenge for the framework I presented.…”
Section: Extensionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In my past work, I have focused on the potential role of response conflict in triggering deliberation (Pennycook, 2023; Pennycook, Fugelsang, & Koehler, 2015) – that is, cases where the system detects a conflict between intuitive outputs lead to subsequent deliberation. The three-stage dual-process model separates the initial “intuition” stage (where processes are initiated autonomously) from the subsequent “metacognition” stage (where conflicts between outputs of stage 1 are monitored).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%