Does thinking make you biased? The case of the engineers and lawyers problem

Building Bridges Across Cognitive Sciences Around the World - Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2012

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 2049-2054

  Morsanyi, Kinga ^a   Handley, Simon J ^b  

^a UK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

conflict detection; dual process theories: engineers and lawyers problem; heuristics and biases; instruction manipulation; liking ratings

Indexed keywords

BASE RATE; COGNITIVE PROCESS; CONFLICT DETECTION; DUAL-PROCESS THEORIES; DUAL-PROCESS THEORY: ENGINEER AND LAWYER PROBLEM; HEURISTIC AND BIAS; INSTRUCTION MANIPULATION; LIKING RATING; NOVEL METHODS; PROCESS INFORMATION;

ENGINEERS;

EID: 84894357822     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (25)

1. Ball, L. J., Lucas, E. J., Miles, J. N. V., & Gale, A. G. (2003). Inspection times and the selection task: What do eye-movements reveal about relevance effects? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 1053-1077.
2. Chiesi, F., Primi, C. & Morsanyi, K. (2011). Developmental changes in probabilistic reasoning: The role of cognitive capacity, instructions, thinking styles and relevant knowledge. Thinking & Reasoning, 17, 315-350.
3. De Neys, W., Cromheeke, S., & Osman, M. (2011). Biased but in doubt: Conflict and decision confidence. PLoS ONE, e15954. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015954.
4. De Neys, W., & Glumicic, T. (2008). Conflict monitoring in dual process theories of reasoning. Cognition, 106, 1248-1299.
5. Evans, J.ST. B.T. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 378–395.
6. Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
7. Ferreira, M. B., Garcia-Marques, L., Sherman, S. J., & Sherman, J. W. (2006). Automatic and controlled components of judgment and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 797–813.
8. Handley, S.J., Newstead, S.E. & Neilens, H. (2011). Matching bias requires analytic reasoning. In: Manktelow, D. Over & S. Elqayam (Eds.) The Science of Reason: A Festschrift for Jonathan St.B.T. Evans. (pp. 167-189). Psychology Press.
9. Handley, S. J., Newstead, S. E., & Trippas, D. (2011). Logic, beliefs, and instruction: A test of the default interventionist account of belief bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 28–43.
10. Hertwig, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (1999). The ‘conjunction fallacy’ revisited: How intelligent inferences look like reasoning errors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 275–305.
11. Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. in K.J. Holyoak & R.G. Morrison [eds.] The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. (pp. 267-293). Cambridge University Press.
12. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237-251.
14. Keren, G., & Schul, Y. (2009) Two is not always better than one: A critical evaluation of two-system theories. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 533-550.
15. Klaczynski, P. A. (2001). Framing effects on adolescent task representations, analytic and heuristic processing, and decision making: Implications for the normative-descriptive gap. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 289-309.
16. Morsanyi, K., & Handley, S. J. (2008). How smart do you need to be to get it wrong? The role of cognitive capacity in the development of heuristic-based judgment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99, 18–36.
17. Morsanyi, K., & Handley, S. J. (2012). Logic feels so good -I like it! Evidence for intuitive detection of logicality in syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. (in press)
18. Osman, M, Stavy, R (2006). Development of intuitive rules: evaluating the application of the dual-system framework to understanding children's intuitive reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,13, 935-953.
19. Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
20. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–726.
21. Thompson, V.A. & Morsanyi, K. (2012). Analytic thinking: Do you feel like it? Mind & Society. (in press)
22. Topolinski, S., Likowski, K. U., Weyers, P., & Strack, F. (2009). The face of fluency: Semantic coherence automatically elicits a specific pattern of facial muscle reactions. Cognition & Emotion, 23, 260-271.
23. Topolinski, S., & Strack, F. (2009a). Scanning the “fringe” of consciousness: What is felt and what is not felt in intuitions about semantic coherence. Consciousness & Cognition, 18, 608-618.
24. Topolinski, S., & Strack, F. (2009b). The architecture of intuition: Fluency and affect determine intuitive judgments of semantic and visual coherence and judgments of grammaticality in artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 39-63.
25. Topolinski, S., & Reber, R. (2010). Gaining insight into the "aha" experience. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 402-405.