Navigation überspringen
Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg
Status: Bibliographieeintrag

Verfügbarkeit
Standort: ---
Exemplare: ---
heiBIB
 Online-Ressource
Verfasst von:Schubert, Anna-Lena [VerfasserIn]   i
 Ferreira, Mário B. [VerfasserIn]   i
 Mata, André [VerfasserIn]   i
 Riemenschneider, Ben [VerfasserIn]   i
Titel:A diffusion model analysis of belief bias
Titelzusatz:different cognitive mechanisms explain how cognitive abilities and thinking styles contribute to conflict resolution in reasoning
Verf.angabe:Anna-Lena Schubert, Mário B. Ferreira, André Mata, Ben Riemenschneider
E-Jahr:2021
Jahr:21 February 2021
Umfang:17 S.
Teil:volume:211
 year:2021
 month:06
 elocationid:104629
 pages:1-17
 extent:17
Fussnoten:Gesehen am 16.06.2021
Titel Quelle:Enthalten in: Cognition
Ort Quelle:Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1972
Jahr Quelle:2021
Band/Heft Quelle:211(2021) vom: Juni, Artikel-ID 104629, Seite 1-17
ISSN Quelle:1873-7838
Abstract:Recent results have challenged the widespread assumption of dual process models of belief bias that sound reasoning relies on slow, careful reflection, whereas biased reasoning is based on fast intuition. Instead, parallel process models of reasoning suggest that rule- and belief-based problem features are processed in parallel and that reasoning problems that elicit a conflict between rule- and belief-based problem features may also elicit more than one Type 1 response. This has important implications for individual-differences research on reasoning, because rule-based responses by certain individuals may reflect that these individuals were either more likely to give a rule-based default response or that they successfully inhibited and overrode a belief-based default response. In two studies, we used the diffusion model to describe decision making in a transitive reasoning task. In Study 1, 41 participants were asked to evaluate conclusions based on their validity. In Study 2, 133 participants evaluated conclusions based on their validity or believability. We tested which diffusion model parameters reflected conflict resolution and related those model parameters to individual differences in cognitive abilities and thinking styles. Individual differences in need for cognition predicted successful conflict resolution under logic instruction, which suggests that a disposition to engage in reflective thinking facilitates the inhibition and override of Type 1 responses. Intelligence, however, was negatively related to successful conflict resolution under belief instruction, which suggests that individuals with high cognitive abilities quickly generated a higher-level logical response that interfered with their ability to evaluate lower-level intrinsic problem features. Taken together, this double dissociation indicates that cognitive abilities and thinking styles affect the processing of conflict information through different mechanisms and at different stages: Greater cognitive abilities facilitate the efficient creation of decoupled problem representations, whereas a greater disposition to engage in critical thinking facilitates the detection and override of Type 1 responses.
DOI:doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104629
URL:Bitte beachten Sie: Dies ist ein Bibliographieeintrag. Ein Volltextzugriff für Mitglieder der Universität besteht hier nur, falls für die entsprechende Zeitschrift/den entsprechenden Sammelband ein Abonnement besteht oder es sich um einen OpenAccess-Titel handelt.

Volltext ; Verlag: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104629
 Volltext: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027721000482
 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104629
Datenträger:Online-Ressource
Sprache:eng
Sach-SW:Belief bias
 Cognitive abilities
 Diffusion model
 Individual differences
 Reasoning
K10plus-PPN:1760544019
Verknüpfungen:→ Zeitschrift

Permanenter Link auf diesen Titel (bookmarkfähig):  https://katalog.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/titel/68749233   QR-Code
zum Seitenanfang