David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Thinking and Reasoning 11 (4):382 – 389 (2005)
In this study, we examine the belief bias effect in syllogistic reasoning under both standard presentation and in a condition where participants are required to respond within 10 seconds. As predicted, the requirement for rapid responding increased the amount of belief bias observed on the task and reduced the number of logically correct decisions, both effects being substantial and statistically significant. These findings were predicted by the dual-process account of reasoning, which posits that fast heuristic processes, responsible for belief bias, compete with slower analytic processes that can lead to correct logical decisions. Requiring rapid responding thus differentially inhibits the operation of analytic reasoning processes, leading to the results observed.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Evan Heit & Caren M. Rotello (2014). Traditional Difference-Score Analyses of Reasoning Are Flawed. Cognition 131 (1):75-91.
Adrian P. Banks (2013). The Influence of Activation Level on Belief Bias in Relational Reasoning. Cognitive Science 37 (3):544-577.
Dries Trippas, Michael F. Verde & Simon J. Handley (2014). Using Forced Choice to Test Belief Bias in Syllogistic Reasoning. Cognition 133 (3):586-600.
Similar books and articles
Jonathan St B. T. Evans (2002). Matching Bias and Set Sizes: A Discussion of Yama (2001). Thinking and Reasoning 8 (2):153 – 163.
Mike Oaksford (2002). Contrast Classes and Matching Bias as Explanations of the Effects of Negation on Conditional Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 8 (2):135 – 151.
Dr Simon J. Handley, A. Capon, M. Beveridge, I. Dennis & J. St BT Evans (2004). Working Memory, Inhibitory Control and the Development of Children's Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 10 (2):175 – 195.
Niki Verschueren, Walter Schaeken & G. (2005). A Dual-Process Specification of Causal Conditional Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 11 (3):239 – 278.
Haruo Kikuno, Peter Mitchell & Fenja Ziegler (2007). How Do Young Children Process Beliefs About Beliefs?: Evidence From Response Latency. Mind and Language 22 (3):297–316.
Donna Torrens (1999). Individual Differences and the Belief Bias Effect: Mental Models, Logical Necessity, and Abstract Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 5 (1):1 – 28.
Stephen E. Newstead, Simon J. Handley & Helen L. Neilens (2011). Effects of Training and Instruction on Analytic and Belief-Based Reasoning Processes. Thinking and Reasoning 15 (1):37-68.
Helen L. Neilens, Simon J. Handley & Stephen E. Newstead (2009). Effects of Training and Instruction on Analytic and Belief-Based Reasoning Processes. Thinking and Reasoning 15 (1):37 – 68.
Linden J. Ball & Edward J. N. Stupple (2008). Belief-Logic Conflict Resolution in Syllogistic Reasoning: Inspection-Time Evidence for a Parallel-Process Model. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (2):168-181.
Edward J. N. Stupple & Linden J. Ball (2008). Belief-Logic Conflict Resolution in Syllogistic Reasoning: Inspection-Time Evidence for a Parallel-Process Model. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (2):168 – 181.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads64 ( #64,618 of 1,792,155 )
Recent downloads (6 months)16 ( #50,428 of 1,792,155 )
How can I increase my downloads?