4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Rule-based reasoning is fast and belief-based reasoning can be slow: Challenging current explanations of belief-bias and base-rate neglect.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          It is commonly assumed that belief-based reasoning is fast and automatic, whereas rule-based reasoning is slower and more effortful. Dual-Process theories of reasoning rely on this speed-asymmetry explanation to account for a number of reasoning phenomena, such as base-rate neglect and belief-bias. The goal of the current study was to test this hypothesis about the relative speed of belief-based and rule-based processes. Participants solved base-rate problems (Experiment 1) and conditional inferences (Experiment 2) under a challenging deadline; they then gave a second response in free time. We found that fast responses were informed by rules of probability and logical validity, and that slow responses incorporated belief-based information. Implications for Dual-Process theories and future research options for dissociating Type I and Type II processes are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn
          Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition
          American Psychological Association (APA)
          1939-1285
          0278-7393
          Jul 2017
          : 43
          : 7
          Affiliations
          [1 ] Department of Psychology, University of Saskatchewan.
          [2 ] Department of Educational Psychology, University of Saskatchewan.
          Article
          2017-06333-001
          10.1037/xlm0000372
          28191989
          021dcf4a-844e-4bf9-8333-64b2faea24ab
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article