IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03510054.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Fast logic?: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory

Author

Listed:
  • Bence Bago

    (LIPADE, Paris Descartes University and Sorbonne Paris Cite University, France, LaPsyDÉ - UMR 8240 - Laboratoire de psychologie du développement et de l'éducation de l'enfant - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UPD5 - Université Paris Descartes - Paris 5 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Wim De Neys

    (LIPADE, Paris Descartes University and Sorbonne Paris Cite University, France, LaPsyDÉ - UMR 8240 - Laboratoire de psychologie du développement et de l'éducation de l'enfant - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UPD5 - Université Paris Descartes - Paris 5 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Influential dual process models of human thinking posit that reasoners typically produce a fast, intuitive heuristic (i.e., Type-1) response which might subsequently be overridden and corrected by slower, deliberative processing (i.e., Type-2). In this study we directly tested this time course assumption. We used a two response paradigm in which participants have to give an immediate answer and afterwards are allowed extra time before giving a final response. In four experiments we used a range of procedures (e.g., challenging response deadline, concurrent load) to knock out Type 2 processing and make sure that the initial response was intuitive in nature. Our key finding is that we frequently observe correct, logical responses as the first, immediate response. Response confidence and latency analyses indicate that these initial correct responses are given fast, with high confidence, and in the face of conflicting heuristic responses. Findings suggest that fast and automatic Type 1 processing also cues a correct logical response from the start. We sketch a revised dual process model in which the relative strength of different types of intuitions determines reasoning performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Bence Bago & Wim De Neys, 2017. "Fast logic?: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory," Post-Print hal-03510054, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03510054
    DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Annika M. Svedholm-Häkkinen & Mika Kiikeri, 2022. "Cognitive miserliness in argument literacy? Effects of intuitive and analytic thinking on recognizing fallacies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 17(2), pages 331-361, March.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:5:p:660-684 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Carpenter, Jeffrey P. & Munro, David, 2022. "Do Losses Trigger Deliberative Reasoning?," IZA Discussion Papers 15292, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Bago, Bence & Bonnefon, Jean-François & De Neys, Wim, 2021. "Intuition Rather Than Deliberation Determines Selfish and Prosocial Choices," TSE Working Papers 21-1213, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:1:p:23-32 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:2:p:148-167 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:2:p:331-361 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Isler, Ozan & Yilmaz, Onurcan & Dogruyol, Burak, 2020. "Activating reflective thinking with decision justification and debiasing training," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(6), pages 926-938, November.
    9. Barnabas Szaszi & Bence Palfi & Aba Szollosi & Pascal J. Kieslich & Balazs Aczel, 2018. "Thinking dynamics and individual differences: Mouse-tracking analysis of the denominator neglect task," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 23-32, January.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:2:p:170-178 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. M. Asher Lawson & Richard P. Larrick & Jack B. Soll, 2020. "Comparing fast thinking and slow thinking: The relative benefits of interventions, individual differences, and inferential rules," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(5), pages 660-684, September.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:6:p:926-938 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Matthieu Raoelison & Wim De Neys, 2019. "Do we de-bias ourselves?: The impact of repeated presentation on the bat-and-ball problem," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(2), pages 170-178, March.
    14. Purcell, Zoe & J. Roberts, Andrew & J. Handley, Simon & Howarth, Stephanie, 2022. "Eye movements, pupil dilation, and conflict detection in reasoning: Exploring the evidence for intuitive logic," IAST Working Papers 22-147, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    15. Patricia L. Moravec & Antino Kim & Alan R. Dennis, 2020. "Appealing to Sense and Sensibility: System 1 and System 2 Interventions for Fake News on Social Media," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 987-1006, September.
    16. Mohammed Khalis & Hind Hourmat, 2021. "Exploring correspondence between social culture, and employees’ subjective well-being: A mystery revealed!," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 10(7), pages 175-185, October.
    17. Michał Białek & Wim De Neys, 2017. "Dual processes and moral conflict: Evidence for deontological reasoners’ intuitive utilitarian sensitivity," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(2), pages 148-167, March.
    18. Bago, Bence & Rand, David & Pennycook, Gordon, 2022. "Does deliberation decrease belief in conspiracies?," IAST Working Papers 22-137, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).

    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:hal:journl:hal-03510054. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.