IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v14y2019i2p170-178_7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do we de-bias ourselves?: The impact of repeated presentation on the bat-and-ball problem

Author

Listed:
  • Raoelison, Matthieu
  • De Neys, Wim

Abstract

The notorious bat-and-ball problem has long been used to demonstrate that people are easily biased by their intuitions. In this paper we test the robustness of biased responding by examining how it is affected by repeated problem presentation. Participants solved 50 standard and control versions of the bat-and-ball problem. To examine the nature of a potential learning effect we adopted a two-response paradigm in which participants have to give a first hunch and can afterwards take the time to deliberate and change their answer. Results showed that both people’s first hunches and the responses they gave after deliberation predominantly remained biased from start to finish. But in the rare cases in which participants did learn to correct themselves, they immediately managed to apply the solution strategy and gave a correct hunch on the subsequent problems. We discuss critical methodological and theoretical implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Raoelison, Matthieu & De Neys, Wim, 2019. "Do we de-bias ourselves?: The impact of repeated presentation on the bat-and-ball problem," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 170-178, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:2:p:170-178_7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500003405/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:2:p:170-178_7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.