Boosting debiasing: Impact of repeated training on reasoning

IF 4.7 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Nina Franiatte , Esther Boissin , Alexandra Delmas , Wim De Neys
{"title":"Boosting debiasing: Impact of repeated training on reasoning","authors":"Nina Franiatte ,&nbsp;Esther Boissin ,&nbsp;Alexandra Delmas ,&nbsp;Wim De Neys","doi":"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101845","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Recent debiasing studies have shown that a short explanation about the correct solution to a reasoning problem can often improve performance of initially biased reasoners. Yet, with only one single training session, there is still a non-neglectable group of reasoners who remained biased.</p></div><div><h3>Aims</h3><p>We explored whether repeated training on a battery of three reasoning tasks (i.e., bat-and-ball, base-rate neglect, and conjunction fallacy) can further boost reasoning performance.</p></div><div><h3>Sample</h3><p>We recruited 120 adults, native English speakers, through Prolific Academic.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We ran two studies with a battery of three classic reasoning tasks (see above). We used a two-response paradigm in which participants first gave an initial intuitive response, under time pressure and cognitive load, and then gave a final response after deliberation. In Study 1, we ran two repeated training sessions within one week. In Study 2, we ran a third training session two months after the initial study.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Study 1 showed that after the first training session, most of the participants solved the problems correctly, as early as the initial intuitive stage. This training effect was further boosted by additional training, which helped almost the full sample to benefit. Study 2 indicated that these effects were robust and persisted after two months.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The repetition of the training can further boost performance compared to the effect of one single training. These results are consistent with the wider literature on repeated testing and can serve as a proof-of-principle for a repeated debias training approach.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48357,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Instruction","volume":"89 ","pages":"Article 101845"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning and Instruction","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475223001147","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Recent debiasing studies have shown that a short explanation about the correct solution to a reasoning problem can often improve performance of initially biased reasoners. Yet, with only one single training session, there is still a non-neglectable group of reasoners who remained biased.

Aims

We explored whether repeated training on a battery of three reasoning tasks (i.e., bat-and-ball, base-rate neglect, and conjunction fallacy) can further boost reasoning performance.

Sample

We recruited 120 adults, native English speakers, through Prolific Academic.

Methods

We ran two studies with a battery of three classic reasoning tasks (see above). We used a two-response paradigm in which participants first gave an initial intuitive response, under time pressure and cognitive load, and then gave a final response after deliberation. In Study 1, we ran two repeated training sessions within one week. In Study 2, we ran a third training session two months after the initial study.

Results

Study 1 showed that after the first training session, most of the participants solved the problems correctly, as early as the initial intuitive stage. This training effect was further boosted by additional training, which helped almost the full sample to benefit. Study 2 indicated that these effects were robust and persisted after two months.

Conclusions

The repetition of the training can further boost performance compared to the effect of one single training. These results are consistent with the wider literature on repeated testing and can serve as a proof-of-principle for a repeated debias training approach.

强化去偏:重复训练对推理的影响
背景最近的去偏倚研究表明,对推理问题的正确解决方案进行简短的解释通常可以提高最初有偏倚的推理者的表现。然而,只有一次培训,仍然有一群不可忽视的推理者仍然存在偏见。目的我们探讨了对三个推理任务(即击球和球、基本速率忽略和连接谬误)的重复训练是否可以进一步提高推理性能。样本我们通过Prolific Academy招募了120名以英语为母语的成年人。方法我们用三项经典推理任务进行了两项研究(见上文)。我们使用了两个反应的范式,参与者首先在时间压力和认知负荷下给出最初的直觉反应,然后在深思熟虑后给出最终反应。在研究1中,我们在一周内进行了两次重复训练。在研究2中,我们在最初的研究两个月后进行了第三次训练。结果研究1表明,在第一次训练后,大多数参与者早在最初的直觉阶段就正确地解决了问题。额外的训练进一步增强了这种训练效果,这有助于几乎整个样本受益。研究2表明,这些影响是强有力的,并在两个月后持续存在。结论与单次训练相比,重复训练可以进一步提高成绩。这些结果与更广泛的重复测试文献一致,可以作为重复debias训练方法的原理证明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: As an international, multi-disciplinary, peer-refereed journal, Learning and Instruction provides a platform for the publication of the most advanced scientific research in the areas of learning, development, instruction and teaching. The journal welcomes original empirical investigations. The papers may represent a variety of theoretical perspectives and different methodological approaches. They may refer to any age level, from infants to adults and to a diversity of learning and instructional settings, from laboratory experiments to field studies. The major criteria in the review and the selection process concern the significance of the contribution to the area of learning and instruction, and the rigor of the study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信