The Smart System 1: evidence for the intuitive nature of correct responding on the bat-and-ball problem
The Smart System 1: evidence for the intuitive nature of correct responding on the bat-and-ball problem
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/13546783.2018.1507949
复制
发表时间：
2019-07-03
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
De Neys, Wim
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bago, Bence;De Neys, Wim
对推理和决策有影响力的工作已经普及了这样一种观点，即合理的推理需要通过较慢和更苛刻的审议来纠正快速，直观的思维过程。我们提出了七项研究，质疑这种人类思维的正确观点。我们关注的问题是众所周知的球棒和球问题，它被广泛认为是矫正观点的典型例证。在一个两种反应的范式中，人们被要求在时间压力和认知负荷下给出一个初始反应，这使我们能够识别出在深思熟虑后给出的最终反应之前的假定直觉反应。在我们的研究中，我们观察到正确的最终反应通常是非纠正性的。许多推理者在深思熟虑之后能够正确回答球棒和球问题，但他们在最初反应阶段最小化深思熟虑的条件下进行推理时，已经正确地解决了这个问题。这表明，健全的击球推理者不一定需要刻意纠正他们的直觉;他们的直觉通常已经是正确的。与纠正观点同步，研究结果表明，在这些情况下，他们会刻意验证正确的直觉见解。
Influential work on reasoning and decision-making has popularised the idea that sound reasoning requires correction of fast, intuitive thought processes by slower and more demanding deliberation. We present seven studies that question this corrective view of human thinking. We focused on the very problem that has been widely featured as the paradigmatic illustration of the corrective view, the well-known bat-and-ball problem. A two-response paradigm in which people were required to give an initial response under time pressure and cognitive load allowed us to identify the presumed intuitive response that preceded the final response given after deliberation. Across our studies, we observe that correct final responses are often non-corrective in nature. Many reasoners who manage to answer the bat-and-ball problem correctly after deliberation already solved it correctly when they reasoned under conditions that minimised deliberation in the initial response phase. This suggests that sound bat-and-ball reasoners do not necessarily need to deliberate to correct their intuitions; their intuitions are often already correct. Pace the corrective view, findings suggest that in these cases, they deliberate to verify correct intuitive insights.