The brain in your pocket: Evidence that Smartphones are used to supplant thinking

Barr, Nathaniel; Pennycook, Gordon; Stolz, Jennifer A.; Fugelsang, Jonathan A.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.029

Cited by 239 publications

(147 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

135

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Stanovich (e.g., 2004;2009b) has argued that thinking disposition is an underappreciated determinant of psychological outcomes. Recent research has supported the idea that cognitive style plays a consequential role in psychological domains that are of some general import (Pennycook, Fugelsang, & Koehler, 2015b): e.g., creativity (Barr, Pennycook, Stolz, & Fugelsang, 2014), moral judgments and values (Paxton, Unger, & Greene, 2012;Pennycook, Cheyne, Barr, Koehler, & Fugelsang, 2014b;Rozyman, Landy, & Goodwin, 2014), religious belief (Gervais & Norenzayan, 2012;Pennycook et al, 2014a;Pennycook, Cheyne, Koehler, & Fugelsang, 2013;Pennycook, Ross, Koehler, & Fugelsang, 2016;Shenhav, Rand, & Greene, 2012), bullshit receptivity (Pennycook, Cheyne, Barr, Koehler, & Fugelsang, 2015), and even Smartphone technology use (Barr, Pennycook, Stolz, & Fugelsang, 2015 …”

Section: Individual Differences In Analytic Thinkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement

Pennycook¹,

Fugelsang²,

Koehler³

2015

Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

380

505

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The distinction between intuitive and analytic thinking is common in psychology. However, while often being quite clear on the characteristics of the two processes ('Type 1' processes are fast, autonomous, intuitive, etc. and 'Type 2' processes are slow, deliberative, analytic, etc.), dual-process theorists have been heavily criticized for being unclear on the factors that determine when an individual will think analytically or rely on their intuition.

show abstract

Section: Individual Differences In Analytic Thinkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement

Pennycook¹,

Fugelsang²,

Koehler³

2015

Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

380

505

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…** The Ns were variable for because the data set was actually the combination of four separate studies that had used different combinations of variables (but always the original CRT, verbal intelligence scale, numeracy scale, and religious belief scale). The reported correlations are from three of the four studies in because one of the studies (Study 3) focused on data from Barr et al (2015) r(372) = -.205. Moreover, to reiterate, the difference between the correlation coefficients for experienced and unexperienced participants was not significant.…”

Section: Prior Experience Does Not Affect the Crt's Predictive Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The cognitive reflection test is robust to multiple exposures

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cognitive reflection test (CRT) is a widely used measure of the propensity to engage in analytic or deliberative reasoning in lieu of gut feelings or intuitions. CRT problems are unique because they reliably cue intuitive but incorrect responses and, therefore, appear simple among those who do poorly. By virtue of being composed of so-called Btrick problems^that, in theory, could be discovered as such, it is commonly held that the predictive validity of the CRT is undermined by prior experience with the task. Indeed, recent studies have shown that people who have had previous experience with the CRT score higher on the test. Naturally, however, it is not obvious that this actually undermines the predictive validity of the test. Across six studies with~2,500 participants and 17 variables of interest (e.g., religious belief, bullshit receptivity, smartphone usage, susceptibility to heuristics and biases, and numeracy), we did not find a single case in which the predictive power of the CRT was significantly undermined by repeated exposure. This occurred despite the fact that we replicated the previously reported increase in accuracy among individuals who reported previous experience with the CRT. We speculate that the CRT remains robust after multiple exposures because less reflective (more intuitive) individuals fail to realize that being presented with apparently easy problems more than once confers information about the task's actual difficulty.

show abstract

“…However, successful multivariate data analysis is not a given [18], requiring what Kahneman [19] calls system 2 thinking, which is reflective and requires greater effort as opposed to system 1, which can be thought of as reflexive, intuitive and low effort. This is potentially problematic on a smartphone which is supplementing and changing human thought processes, to allow for people to avoid "effortful analytic thinking in lieu of fast and easy intuition" [20]. This suggests that smartphones, due to their size, public use, and portability could be thought of as primarily a System 1 device, with users expecting largely intuitive interactions.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Questioning the Reflection Paradigm for Diabetes Mobile Apps

Katz

Dalton

Holland

et al. 2016

Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Hundreds of diabetes self-management apps are available for smart phones, typically using a diary or logging methodology. This paper investigates how well such approaches help participants to make sense of collected data. We found that, while such systems typically support data and trend review, they are ill suited to helping users understand complex correlations in the data. The cognitively demanding user interfaces (UI's) of these apps are poorly adapted both to the restricted real estate of smartphone displays and to the daily needs of users. Many participants expressed the desire for intelligent, personalized and contextually aware near-term advice. By contrast, users did not see tools for reflection on prior data and behavior, seen as indispensable by many researchers, as a priority. We argue that while designers of future mobile health (mHealth) systems need to take advantage of automation through connected sensors, and the increasing subtlety of intelligent processing, it is also necessary to evolve current graphs and dashboards UI paradigms to assist users in longterm self-management health practices.

show abstract

The brain in your pocket: Evidence that Smartphones are used to supplant thinking

Cited by 239 publications

References 35 publications

What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement

What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement

The cognitive reflection test is robust to multiple exposures

Questioning the Reflection Paradigm for Diabetes Mobile Apps

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About