When Type 2 Processing Misfires: The Indiscriminate Use of Statistical Thinking about Reasoning Problems

Ferreira, Mário B.; Soro, Jerônimo C.; Reis, Joana; Mata, André; Thompson, Valerie A.

doi:10.3390/jintelligence10040109

Open AccessArticle

When Type 2 Processing Misfires: The Indiscriminate Use of Statistical Thinking about Reasoning Problems

by

Mário B. Ferreira

^1,*,†,

Jerônimo C. Soro

^2,*,†,

Joana Reis

¹,

André Mata

¹ and

Valerie A. Thompson

³

¹

CICPSI, Faculdade de Psicologia, Universidade de Lisboa, 1649-013 Lisboa, Portugal

²

Digital Human-Environment Interaction Labs, Lusófona University, HEI-Lab, 1749-024 Lisboa, Portugal

³

Department of Psychology, University of Saskatchewan, 9 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A5, Canada

^*

Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.

^†

These authors contributed equally to this work.

J. Intell. 2022, 10(4), 109; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040109

Submission received: 16 September 2022 / Revised: 24 October 2022 / Accepted: 10 November 2022 / Published: 17 November 2022

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Metareasoning: Theoretical and Methodological Developments)

Download

Browse Figures

Versions Notes

Abstract

Research on dual-process theories of judgment makes abundant use of reasoning problems that present a conflict between Type 1 intuitive responses and Type 2 rule-based responses. However, in many of these reasoning tasks, there is no way to discriminate between the adequate and inadequate use of rules based on logical or probabilistic principles. To experimentally discriminate between the two, we developed a new set of problems: rule-inadequate versions of standard base-rate problems (where base rates are made irrelevant). Across four experiments, we observed conflict sensitivity (measured in terms of response latencies and response confidence) in responses to standard base-rate problems but also in responses to rule-inadequate versions of these problems. This failure to discriminate between real and merely apparent (or spurious) conflict suggests that participants often misuse statistical information and draw conclusions based on irrelevant base rates. We conclude that inferring the sound use of statistical rules from normatively correct responses to standard conflict problems may be unwarranted when this kind of reasoning bias is not controlled for.

Keywords: dual-process theory; reasoning; judgment; bias; metacognition

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ferreira, M.B.; Soro, J.C.; Reis, J.; Mata, A.; Thompson, V.A. When Type 2 Processing Misfires: The Indiscriminate Use of Statistical Thinking about Reasoning Problems. J. Intell. 2022, 10, 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040109

AMA Style

Ferreira MB, Soro JC, Reis J, Mata A, Thompson VA. When Type 2 Processing Misfires: The Indiscriminate Use of Statistical Thinking about Reasoning Problems. Journal of Intelligence. 2022; 10(4):109. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040109

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ferreira, Mário B., Jerônimo C. Soro, Joana Reis, André Mata, and Valerie A. Thompson. 2022. "When Type 2 Processing Misfires: The Indiscriminate Use of Statistical Thinking about Reasoning Problems" Journal of Intelligence 10, no. 4: 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040109

APA Style

Ferreira, M. B., Soro, J. C., Reis, J., Mata, A., & Thompson, V. A. (2022). When Type 2 Processing Misfires: The Indiscriminate Use of Statistical Thinking about Reasoning Problems. Journal of Intelligence, 10(4), 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040109

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Menu

When Type 2 Processing Misfires: The Indiscriminate Use of Statistical Thinking about Reasoning Problems

Abstract

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI