IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v17y2022i4p646-690_1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Debiasing System 1: Training favours logical over stereotypical intuiting

Author

Listed:
  • Boissin, Esther
  • Caparos, Serge
  • Voudouri, Aikaterini
  • De Neys, Wim

Abstract

Whereas people’s reasoning is often biased by intuitive stereotypical associations, recent debiasing studies suggest that performance can be boosted by short training interventions that stress the underlying problem logic. The nature of this training effect remains unclear. Does training help participants correct erroneous stereotypical intuitions through deliberation? Or does it help them develop correct intuitions? We addressed this issue in four studies with base-rate neglect and conjunction fallacy problems. We used a two-response paradigm in which participants first gave an initial intuitive response, under time pressure and cognitive load, and then gave a final response after deliberation. Studies 1A and 2A showed that training boosted performance and did so as early as the intuitive stage. After training, most participants solved the problems correctly from the outset and no longer needed to correct an initial incorrect answer through deliberation. Studies 1B and 2B indicated that this sound intuiting persisted over at least two months. The findings confirm that a short training can debias reasoning at an intuitive “System 1” stage and get reasoners to favour logical over stereotypical intuitions.

Suggested Citation

  • Boissin, Esther & Caparos, Serge & Voudouri, Aikaterini & De Neys, Wim, 2022. "Debiasing System 1: Training favours logical over stereotypical intuiting," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(4), pages 646-690, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:4:p:646-690_1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500008895/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:17:y:2022:i:4:p:646-690_1. 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.