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

Abstract

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.

Predicting individual differences in conflict detection and bias susceptibility during reasoning

“…Also, the fact that detection efficiencies did show up to predict conflict reasoning accuracy over standard individual difference predictors and mindware instantiation suggests that detection indices did capture some meaningful variance which is predictive of reasoning performance and is not due to other related cognitive factors which were included in the analysis. Most importantly, a recent study by Burič and Šrol (2019) offers some evidence for the replicability of the present conflict detection findings and thus lends further credence to the results we report here.…”

“…Still, it is possible that a simple solution such as increasing the number of neutral items might help researchers in future studies to limit the problem of low internal consistency and thus increase the reliability of findings pertaining to the role of the mindware component in the reasoning process. Although the mindware instantiation in our study showed up to be the most substantial predictor of both conflict detection and overall accuracy on conflict reasoning problems, due to low reliability of our mindware measure, the results will have to be taken with some caution (although, for similar patterns of results pertaining to mindware instantiation, see Burič & Šrol, 2019).…”

“…It should be noted, however, that Burič and Šrol (2019) also identified the problem with the low reliability of the conflict detection indices. We believe this low reliability is the key reason for why we have only managed to explain 7% of the variance in the confidence detection efficiency, even though we used a wide range of standard individual difference predictors as well as mindware instantiation as possible predictors.…”

Mindware Instantiation as a Predictor of Logical Intuitions in Cognitive Reflection Test

“…Nevertheless, this assumption needs to be further analyzed in future research, as it is not supported by relevant data. Second, there is not much research combining the CRT with the two-response paradigm, as most of the studies have been using syllogisms, conditional reasoning tasks or base-rate neglect tasks (Bago & De Neys, 2017;Burič & Šrol, 2019;Thompson et al, 2011;Thompson & Johnson, 2014), with an exception of Bago and De Neys (2019b), who used the bat-and-ball problem, but not the rest of the CRT. Thus, we are not provided with a relevant benchmark.…”