Examining the role of deliberation in de-bias training

Thinking and Reasoning 30 (2):327-355 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Does avoiding biased responding to reasoning problems and grasping the ­correct solution require engaging in effortful deliberation or can such solution insight be acquired more intuitively? In this study we set out to test the impact of deliberation on the efficiency of a de-bias training in which the problem logic was explained to participants. We focused on the infamous bat-and-ball problem and varied the degree of possible deliberation during the training session by manipulating time constraints and cognitive load. The results show that the less constrained the deliberation, the more participants improve. However, even under extremely stringent conditions (high time-pressure and dual task load), participants still show a significant improvement. Critically, this “intuitive” insight effect persists over two months. This suggests that deliberation helps reasoners benefit from the training, but it is not indispensable. We discuss critical applied and theoretical implications.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,873

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Automated choice heuristics.Shane Frederick - 2002 - In . Cambridge University Press. pp. 548-558.
De‐Biasing Legal Fact‐Finders With Bayesian Thinking.Christian Dahlman - 2020 - Topics in Cognitive Science 12 (4):1115-1131.
Bias and Knowledge: Two Metaphors.Erin Beeghly - 2020 - In Erin Beeghly & Alex Madva (eds.), An Introduction to Implicit Bias: Knowledge, Justice, and the Social Mind. New York, NY, USA: Routledge. pp. 77-98.
Anxiety as a Positive Epistemic Emotion in Politics.Antonia Rosati, Florencia Guglielmetti & Leandro De Brasi - 2021 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 33 (1):1-24.
Out of the theoretical cul-de-sac.Ralph Hertwig & Annika Wallin - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (3):342-343.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-09-26

Downloads
10 (#1,217,101)

6 months
4 (#854,689)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Enigma of Reason.Dan Sperber & Hugo Mercier (eds.) - 2017 - Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition Advancing the Debate.Jonathan Evans & Keith E. Stanovich - 2013 - Perspectives on Psychological Science 8 (3):223-241.
Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory.Dan Sperber - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2):57.
The empirical case for two systems of reasoning.Steven A. Sloman - 1996 - Psychological Bulletin 119 (1):3-22.
11. Why Is Reasoning Biased?Dan Sperber & Hugo Mercier - 2017 - In Dan Sperber & Hugo Mercier (eds.), The Enigma of Reason. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press. pp. 205-221.

View all 22 references / Add more references