Metacognition and abstract reasoning

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 681-693

  Markovits, Henry ^a   Thompson, Valerie A ^b   Brisson, Janie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN   (Canada)

Author keywords

Abstract reasoning; Conditional reasoning; Metacognition

Indexed keywords

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; METACOGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY; THINKING; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; METACOGNITION; THINKING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84940004529     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: 15325946     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13421-014-0488-9     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Ackerman, R., & Thompson, V. A. (2014). Meta-reasoning: What can we learn from metamemory. In A. Feeney & V. A. Thompson (Eds.), Reasoning as memory (pp. 164–182). UK: Psychology Press.
2. Ackerman, R., & Zalmanov, H. (2012). The persistence of the fluency–confidence association in problem solving. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(6), 1189–1192.
3. Costermans, J., Lories, G., & Ansay, C. (1992). Confidence level and feeling of knowing in question answering: The weight of inferential processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(1), 142.
4. Cummins, D. D., Lubart, T., Alksnis, O., & Rist, R. (1991). Conditional reasoning and causation. Memory & Cognition, 19(3), 274–282.
5. De Neys, W. (2012). Bias and conflict: A case for logical intuitions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(1), 28–38.
6. De Neys, W., Cromheeke, S., & Osman, M. (2011). Biased but in doubt: Conflict and decision confidence. PloS One, 6(1), e15954.
7. De Neys, W., & Glumicic, T. (2008). Conflict monitoring in dual process theories of thinking. Cognition, 106(3), 1248–1299.
8. De Neys, W., Rossi, S., & Houdé, O. (2013). Bats, balls, and substitution sensitivity: Cognitive misers are no happy fools. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(2), 269–273.
9. De Neys, W., Vartanian, O., & Goel, V. (2008). Smarter than we think: When our brains detect that we are biased. Psychological Science, 19(5), 483–489.
10. Dunlosky, J., & Tauber, S. K. (2014). Understanding people’s metacognitive judgments: An isomechanism framework and its implications for applied and theoretical research. In T. Perfect & D. S. Lindsay (Eds.), Handbook of applied memory (pp. 444–464). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709–709.
12. Evans, J. S. B. T. (2007). Hypothetical thinking: Dual processes in reasoning and judgement. New York, NY US: Psychology Press.
13. Evans, J. S. B., & Curtis-Holmes, J. (2005). Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 11(4), 382–389.
14. Franssens, S., & De Neys, W. (2009). Belief inhibition during thinking: Not always winning but at least taking part. Cognition, 113(1), 45–61.
15. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42.
16. Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Counterfactual as behavioural primes: Priming the simulation heuristic and consideration of alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 384–409.
17. 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(1), 28–43. doi:10.1037/a0021098
18. Heit, E., & Rotello, C. M. (2010). Relations between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(3), 805.
19. Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Bara, B. G. (1984). Syllogistic inference. Cognition, 16, 1–61.
20. Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1991). Deduction. Hove & London: Erlbaum.
21. Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (2002). Conditionals: A theory of meaning, pragmatics and inference. Psychological Review, 109, 646–678.
22. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1995). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Koriat, A. (2007). Metacognition and consciousness. In P. D. Zelazo, M. Moscovitch, & E. Thompson (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of consciousness (pp. 289–325). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24. Koriat, A., & Levy-Sadot, R. (2001). The combined contributions of the cue-familiarity and accessibility heuristics to feelings of knowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(1), 34.
25. Markman, K. D., Lindberg, M. J., Kray, L. J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2007). Implications of counterfactual structure for creative generation and analytic problem-solving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(3), 312–324.
26. Markovits, H. (2000). A mental model analysis of young children's conditional reasoning with meaningful premises. Thinking & Reasoning, 6(4), 335–347.
27. Markovits, H., Brunet, M.-L., Thompson, V., & Brisson, J. (2013). Direct evidence for a dual process model of deductive inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(4), 1213–1222.
28. Markovits, H., & Lortie Forgues, H. (2011). Conditional reasoning with false premises facilitates the transition between familiar and abstract reasoning. Child Development, 82(2), 646–660. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01526.x
29. Markovits, H., Lortie Forgues, H., & Brunet, M.-L. (2010). Conditional reasoning, frequency of counterexamples, and the effect of response modality. Memory & Cognition, 38(4), 485–492.
30. Markovits, H., & Vachon, R. (1989). Reasoning with contrary-to-fact propositions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 47, 398–412.
31. Markovits, H., & Vachon, R. (1990). Conditional reasoning, representation, and level of abstraction. Developmental Psychology, 26(6), 942–951.
32. 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, 38(3), 596.
33. Moshman, D. (1998). Cognitive development beyond childhood. In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 947–978). New York: Wiley.
34. Moshman, D., & Franks, B. (1986). Development of the concept of inferential validity. Child Development, 57, 153–165.
35. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research (Vol. 26, pp. 125–173). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
36. Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2003). Conditional probability and the cognitive science of conditional reasoning. Mind & Language, 18(4), 359–379.
37. Pennycook, G., Trippas, D., Handley, S. H., & Thompson, V. A. (2013). Base rates: Both neglected and intuitive. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition. doi:10.1037/a0034887
38. Prowse Turner, J. A., & Thompson, V. A. (2009). The role of training, alternative models, and logical necessity in determining confidence in syllogistic reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 15(1), 69–100.
39. Rips, L. J. (2001). Two kinds of reasoning. Psychological Science, 12(2), 129–134.
40. Shynkaruk, J. M., & Thompson, V. A. (2006). Confidence and accuracy in deductive reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 34(3), 619–632.
41. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3–22.
42. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–726.
43. Thompson, V. A. (1994). Interpretational factors in conditional reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 22(6), 742–758.
44. Thompson, V. A. (2000). The task-specific nature of domain-general reasoning. Cognition, 76(3), 209–268.
45. Thompson, V. A. (2009). Dual process theories: A metacognitive perspective. In two minds: dual processes and beyond. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
46. Thompson, V. A., Evans, J. S. B. T., & Campbell, J. I. D. (2013a). Matching bias on selection task: It’s fast and it feels good. Thinking & Reasoning, 19, 431–452.
47. Thompson, V. A., Prowse Turner, J. A., & Pennycook, G. (2011). Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63(3), 107–140.
48. Thompson, V. A., Turner, J. A. P., Pennycook, G., Ball, L. J., Brack, H., Ophir, Y., & Ackerman, R. (2013b). The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency as metacognitive cues for initiating analytic thinking. Cognition, 128, 237–251.
49. Topolinski, S. (2014). Intuition: Introducing affect into cognition. In A. Feeney & V. A. Thompson (Eds.), Reasoning as memory (pp. 146–163). UK: Psychology Press.
50. Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation leads to postive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 989–1000.