Patterns of response times and response choices to science questions: The influence of relative processing time

Cognitive Science

Volumn 39, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 496-537

  Heckler, Andrew F ^a   Scaife, Thomas M ^b  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN PLATTEVILLE   (United States)

Author keywords

Dual processes; Fluency; Graph comprehension; Heuristics; Response time; Science concepts; Science misconceptions; Stroop effect

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; HEURISTICS; HUMAN; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; REACTION TIME; STROOP TEST; TASK PERFORMANCE;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COGNITIVE SCIENCE; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; HEURISTICS; HUMANS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; REACTION TIME; STROOP TEST; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS;

EID: 84926632299     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: 15516709     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12166     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Alter, A. L. (2013). The benefits of cognitive disfluency. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(6), 437-442.
2. Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Anderson, J. R., Fincham, J. M., & Douglass, S. (1999). Practice and retention: A unifying analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1120-1136.
4. Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Balota, D. A., & Yap, M. J. (2011). Moving beyond the mean in studies of mental chronometry: The power of response time distributional analyses. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 160-166.
6. Beichner, R. J. (1994). Testing student interpretation of graphs. American Journal of Physics, 62, 750-762.
7. Bergert, F. B., & Nosofsky, R. M. (2007). A response-time approach to comparing generalized rational and take-the-best models of decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 107-129.
8. Brace, J. J., Morton, J. B., & Munakata, Y. (2006). When actions speak louder than words: Improving children's flexibility in a card-sorting task. Psychological Science, 17, 665-669.
9. Brown, S. D., & Heathcote, A. (2008). The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 153-178.
10. Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.
11. Clement, J. (1982). Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 66-71.
12. Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 332-361.
13. De Neys, W. (2006). Dual processing in reasoning: Two systems but one reasoned. Psychological Science, 17, 428-433.
14. Driver, R., & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories-in-action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students' conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education, 10, 37-60.
15. Dunbar, K. N., & MacLeod, C. M. (1984). A horse race of a different color: Stroop interference patterns with transformed words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 622-639.
16. Dyer, F. N. (1973). The Stroop phenomenon and its use in the study of perceptual, cognitive, and response processes. Memory and Cognition, 1, 106-120.
17. Evans, J. St. B. T. (1996). Deciding before you think: Relevance and reasoning in the selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 223-240.
18. Evans, J. St. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255-278.
19. Evans, J. St. B. T., Clibbins, J., Cattani, A., Harris, A., & Dennis, I. (2003) Explicit and implicit processes in multicue judgment. Memory and Cognition, 31, 608-618.
20. Evans, J. St. B. T., Newstead, S. E., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1993). Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Hove, England: Erlbaum.
21. Freyd, J. J. (1987). Dynamic mental representations. Psychological Review, 94, 427-438.
22. Freyd, J. J., & Finke, R. A. (1984). Representational momentum. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 10, 126-132.
23. Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why heuristics work. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 20-29.
24. Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 107-143.
25. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103, 650-669.
26. Gillan, D. J., & Lewis, R. (1994). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: 1. Linear regression modeling. Human Factors, 36, 419-440.
27. Gilovich, T., & Griffin, D. W. (2002). Heuristics and biases then and now. In T. Gilovich, D. W. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), The psychology of intuitive judgment: Heuristic and biases (pp. 1-18). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
28. Goldstone, R. L., Landy, D. H., & Son, J. Y. (2010). The education of perception. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 265-284.
29. Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common-sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1056-1065.
30. Heathcote, A., Popiel, S. J., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (1991). Analysis of response time distributions: An example using the Stroop task. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 340-347.
31. Heckler, A. F. (2011). The ubiquitous patterns of incorrect answers to science questions: The role of automatic, bottom-up processes. In J. P. Mestre, & B. H. Ross (Eds.), Cognition in education. Vol. 55 (pp. 227-268). Oxford, England: Academic Press.
32. Hegarty, M. (2011). The cognitive science of visual-spatial displays: Implications for design. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 446-474.
33. Hertwig, R., Herzog, S. M., Schooler, L. J., & Reimer, T. (2008). Fluency heuristic: A model of how the mind exploits a by-product of information retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 34, 1191-1206.
34. Hubbard, T. L. (1998). Representational momentum and other displacement in memory as evidence for nonconscious knowledge of physical principles. In S. Hameroff, A. Kaszniak, & A. Scott (Eds.), Toward a science of consciousness: II. The 1996 Tucson discussion and debates (pp. 505-512). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697-720.
36. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgement. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of Intuitive Judgment (pp. 49-81). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
37. Kaiser, M. K., Proffitt, D. R., & Anderson, K. A. (1985). Judgments of natural and anomalous trajectories in the presence and absence of motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 795-803.
38. Kaiser, M. K., Proffitt, D. R., Whelan, S. M., & Hecht, H. (1992). Influence of animation on dynamical judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 669-689.
39. Kellman, P. J., Massey, C. M., & Son, J. Y. (2010). Perceptual learning modules in mathematics: Enhancing students' pattern recognition, structure extraction, and fluency. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 285-305.
40. Keil, F. C. (2010). The feasibility of folk science. Cognitive science, 34(5), 826-862.
41. Kind, V. (2004). Beyond appearances: students' misconceptions about basic chemical ideas: A report prepared for the Royal Society of Chemistry, London: Education Division, Royal Society of Chemistry (2nd ed.). Available at http://www.rsc.org/images/Misconceptions_update_tcm18-188603.pdf. Accessed September 12, 2011.
42. Kozhevnikov, M., & Hegarty, M. (2001). Impetus beliefs as default heuristics: Dissociation between explicit and implicit knowledge about motion. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 439-453.
43. Kozhevnikov, M., Motes, M. A., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Spatial visualization in physics problem solving. Cognitive Science, 31, 549-579.
44. Kriz, S., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65, 911-930.
45. Lehman, E. L., & Casella, G. (1998). Theory of point estimation. New York: Springer-Verlag.
46. Luce, R. D. (1986). Response Times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Organization (No. 8). New York: Oxford University Press.
47. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.
48. Macleod, C. M., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Training and stroop-like interference: Evidence for a continuum of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memnory and Cognition, 14, 126-135.
49. MacLeod, C. M., & MacDonald, P. A. (2000). Interdimensional interference in the Stroop effect: Uncovering the cognitive and neural anatomy of attention. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 383-391.
50. McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
51. McDermott, L. C., & Redish, E. F. (1999). Resource Letter: PER-1 Physics Education Research, American Journal of Physics, 67, 755-767.
52. Mcdermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L., & van Zee, E. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 503.
53. Mokros, J. R., & Tinker, R. F. (1987). The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children's ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 369-383.
54. Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86, 548-571.
55. Oberle, C. D., McBeath, M. K., Madigan, S. C., & Sugar, T. G. (2006). The Galileo bias: A naive conceptual belief that influences people's perceptions and performance in a ball-dropping task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 643-653.
56. Ollman, R. T. (1966). Fast guesses in choice reaction time. Psychonomic Science, 6, 155-156.
57. Peebles, D., & Cheng, P. C. (2003). Modeling the effect of task and graphical representation on response latency in a graph reading task. Human Factors, 45, 28-45.
58. Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (2000). Bibliogaphy: Students' alternative frameworks and science education (5th ed). Kiel, Germany: Institute for Education Science.
59. Piaget, J. (1976). The grasp of consciousness (S. Wedgwood, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1974).
60. Ratcliff, R. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 446-461.
61. Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510-532.
62. Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20, 873-922.
63. Ratcliff, R., & Murdock, B. B., Jr (1976). Retrieval processes in recognition memory. Psychological Review, 83, 190-214.
64. Rohrer, D. (2003). The natural appearance of unnatural incline speed. Memory and Cognition, 31, 816-826.
65. Schooler, L. J., & Hertwig, R. (2005). How forgetting aids heuristic inference. Psychological Review, 112, 610-628.
66. Shah, P., & Freedman, E. G. (2011). Bar and line graph comprehension: An interaction of top-down and bottom-up processes. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 560-578.
67. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99-118.
68. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3-22.
69. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115-163.
70. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645-665.
71. Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000). How students (Mis-) understand science and mathematics: intuitive rules. New York: Teachers College Press.
72. Thaden-Koch, T. C., Dufresne, R. J., & Mestre, J. P. (2006). Coordination of knowledge in judging animated motion. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 2, 020107-1-020107-11.
73. Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1983). Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
74. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
75. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
76. Usher, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2001). On the time course of perceptual choice: The leaky competing accumulator model. Psychological Review, 108, 550-592.
77. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45-69.
78. Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (1992). Cognitive development: Foundational theories of core domains. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 337-375.