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

Abstract

Following the growing body of evidence suggesting that substantial individual differences in reasoning exist already at the 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. We asked 908 participants to solve the Cognitive Reflection Test presented under the two-response paradigm, to obtain both intuitive and analytical response, while measuring 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 the cases when the response was correct in the final response stage, it 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 Cognitive Reflection Test -the ability to measure the tendency to override a misleading intuitive answer.

Categorizing judgments as likely to be selected by intuition or deliberation

“…Hence, even people who give the alleged system 1 response seem to be processing the alleged system 2 response. Critically, this conflict sensitivity is also observed when potential system 2 processing is knocked out with experimental constraint manipulations (e.g., , 2019bBiałek & De Neys, 2017;Burič & Konrádová, 2021;Burič & Šrol, 2020;Johnson, Tubau, & De Neys, 2016;Pennycook, Trippas, Handley, & Thompson, 2014;. In line with the two-response findings, this indicates that the alleged unique system 2 response is also being processed intuitively.…”

“…However, two-response studies with these and other classic bias tasks have shown that this is typically not the case. Those reasoners who give the correct response as their final response after deliberation often already generate this same correct response at the initial, intuitive response stage (e.g., , 2019aBurič & Konrádová, 2021;Burič & Šrol, 2020;Dujmović, Valerjev, & Bajšanski, 2021;Raoelison et al, 2020;. Hence, sound reasoners do not need to deliberate to correct an initial response, their initial response is already correct.…”

Advancing theorizing about fast-and-slow thinking

“…Hence, even people who give the alleged system 1 response seem to be processing the alleged system 2 response. Critically, this conflict sensitivity is also observed when potential system 2 processing is knocked out with experimental constraint manipulations (e.g., Bago & De Neys, 2017, 2019b; Białek & De Neys, 2017; Burič & Konrádová, 2021; Burič & Šrol, 2020; Johnson, Tubau, & De Neys, 2016; Pennycook, Trippas, Handley, & Thompson, 2014; Thompson & Johnson, 2014). In line with the two-response findings, this indicates that the alleged unique system 2 response is also being processed intuitively.…”

“…However, two-response studies with these and other classic bias tasks have shown that this is typically not the case. Those reasoners who give the correct response as their final response after deliberation often already generate this same correct response at the initial, intuitive response stage (e.g., Bago & De Neys, 2017, 2019a; Burič & Konrádová, 2021; Burič & Šrol, 2020; Dujmović, Valerjev, & Bajšanski, 2021; Raoelison et al, 2020; Thompson & Johnson, 2014). Hence, sound reasoners do not need to deliberate to correct an initial response, their initial response is already correct.…”

Eye Movements, Pupil Dilation, and Conflict Detection in Reasoning: Exploring the Evidence for Intuitive Logic

“…Recently, researchers have challenged this view, claiming that reasoning based upon logical principles can, in fact, occur at a fast and intuitive level of processing. For example, experiments aimed at knocking out Type 2 processing with time constraints (Pennycook, Trippas, Handley, & Thompson, 2014; Thompson & Johnson, 2014) cognitive load (Franssens & De Neys, 2009; Johnson, Tubau, & De Neys, 2016) or both (Bago & De Neys, 2017) have shown that sensitivity to conflict and correct normative responses can occur at the intuitive stage of processing (Burič & Konrádová 2021; Burič & Šrol, 2020). Dual process 2.0 models (De Neys, 2018; De Neys & Pennycook, 2019) claim that belief‐based and logic‐based responses are activated intuitively and in parallel, leading to the detection of conflict that may or may not be resolved through the intervention of Type 2 deliberative processes (e.g., Bago & De Neys, 2017; De Neys, 2012; Handley & Trippas, 2015).…”