Illusory intuitive inferences: Matching heuristics explain logical intuitions

Ghasemi, Omid; Handley, Simon J.; Howarth, Stephanie

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105417

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Believability judgements were influenced on items with both belief-logic conflict and belief-possibility conflict, which was interpreted to indicate the involvement of heuristics and not intuitive logic. Their later work further demonstrates the involvement of matching heuristics on syllogisms (Ghasemi et al, 2023).…”

Section: 'Reverse' Detection In Ac and Da Conditional Syllogismsmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…For example, on the conjunction task, conflict items tend to have more similar probabilities associated with each of the response options, as compared to no-conflict items, which was argued to reduce confidence in the responses (Aczel et al, 2016). Logic liking effects disappeared when the materials controlled for surface features, such as atmosphere (Ghasemi et al, 2023;Meyer-Grant et al, 2023), repetition (Klauer & Singmann, 2013), or argument strength (Ghasemi et al, 2022). This suggests that heuristics, but not intuitive logic influenced liking judgements in earlier studies.…”

Section: Conflict Detection and Intuitive Logicmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conflict detection with invalid inferences: all heuristics, no logic

Kosourikhina,

Handley

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Under current process models of reasoning, detecting conflict between beliefs and logic is a key step that determines whether people will engage in reflective thinking. Conflict detection has been found across many tasks, but it is less reliably observed with syllogistic reasoning. ‘Reverse’ detection effects have been found in some studies, which are not easily explained within the current model of conflict detection and cannot be attributed only to measurement noise. In this study, we test whether ‘reverse’ detection effects in invalid syllogisms can be attributed to a mismatch between where conflict is thought to occur based on normative expectations and where conflict actually occurs for participants. We present evidence from two experiments (total N = 248) showing that invalid AC and DA syllogisms are intuitively valid to many participants, and that there are no differences in reaction time and confidence between valid and invalid items once believability and chosen response are taken into consideration. Further, we show that ‘reverse’ detection effects on invalid items disappear if we treat them as valid, on the assumption that this reflects where conflict occurs subjectively. These results indicate that conflict in these items likely occurs between two heuristic responses, rather than logic and heuristics; and that subjective, not objective conflict should be considered when measuring conflict detection.

show abstract

Section: 'Reverse' Detection In Ac and Da Conditional Syllogismsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Conflict Detection and Intuitive Logicmentioning

confidence: 92%

Conflict detection with invalid inferences: all heuristics, no logic

Kosourikhina,

Handley

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We have recently run a series of studies in which the output of a matching heuristic and the logical response were misaligned. In these circumstances, matching dominates S1 outputs, whereas logic dominates S2 (Ghasemi, Handley, & Howarth, 2023). What these studies illustrate is that there is no guarantee that a response based upon superficial problem features will align with the formal logical response.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Learning how to reason and deciding when to decide

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A different thing is to assume that, because of such differences, people realize that they are wrong. Underlying such differences might be true sensitivity to logical principles (for compelling evidence that conflict detection is related to knowledge of logical principles, see Burič and Šrol 2020;Frey et al 2017;Šrol and De Neys 2021), but sometimes it might be mere sensitivity to peripheral features of a problem, unrelated to logic (Aczel et al 2016;Ferreira et al 2022;Ghasemi et al 2023Ghasemi et al , 2022Klauer and Singmann 2013;Meyer-Grant et al 2022).…”

Section: Unskilled and Unaware: On Conflict Detection And Error Monit...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Overconfidence in the Cognitive Reflection Test: Comparing Confidence Resolution for Reasoning vs. General Knowledge

Mata

2023

J. Intell.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examines the metacognitive awareness that people have about their reasoning performance in the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT). The first two studies compare confidence judgments about the CRT vs. general knowledge (GK) questions. Results show that (1) people are generally able to discriminate between correct and incorrect answers, but this ability is far from perfect, and it is greater for GK questions than for CRT problems. Indeed, and strikingly, (2) incorrect responses to CRT problems are produced with approximately the same level of confidence as correct responses to GK questions. However, (3) even though confidence is high for incorrect responses to CRT problems, it is even higher for correct responses. The results of two additional studies show that these differences in confidence are ultimately related to the conflict that CRT problems pose between intuition and deliberation. These findings have implications for the possibility of implicit error monitoring and dual-process models of overconfidence.

show abstract

Illusory intuitive inferences: Matching heuristics explain logical intuitions

Cited by 17 publications

References 55 publications

Conflict detection with invalid inferences: all heuristics, no logic

Conflict detection with invalid inferences: all heuristics, no logic

Learning how to reason and deciding when to decide

Overconfidence in the Cognitive Reflection Test: Comparing Confidence Resolution for Reasoning vs. General Knowledge

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About