考察审议在去偏见训练中的作用

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Esther Boissin, Serge Caparos, Wim De Neys
{"title":"考察审议在去偏见训练中的作用","authors":"Esther Boissin, Serge Caparos, Wim De Neys","doi":"10.1080/13546783.2023.2259542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractDoes avoiding biased responding to reasoning problems and grasping the ­correct solution require engaging in effortful deliberation or can such solution insight be acquired more intuitively? In this study we set out to test the impact of deliberation on the efficiency of a de-bias training in which the problem logic was explained to participants. We focused on the infamous bat-and-ball problem and varied the degree of possible deliberation during the training session by manipulating time constraints and cognitive load. The results show that the less constrained the deliberation, the more participants improve. However, even under extremely stringent conditions (high time-pressure and dual task load), participants still show a significant improvement. Critically, this “intuitive” insight effect persists over two months. This suggests that deliberation helps reasoners benefit from the training, but it is not indispensable. We discuss critical applied and theoretical implications.Keywords: Reasoninginsightheuristics & biasesde-biasingintuition Disclosure statementNone.Open data statementRaw data can be downloaded from our OSF page (https://osf.io/3b4jy/?view_only=a388443c8fc34310b9f908fe847f077b).Notes1 Hence, whenever we report null findings, we cannot exclude that with a more powerful design the effects might be significant.2 Participants solved three training problems and read an explanation for each one. We focused on the problem solution times for the two problems after the first explanation (i.e., the third and fourth problem of the whole intervention).3 Given that all reading times were fixed at 8 seconds in the fast group (i.e., participants could not advance earlier), this analysis was not informative in this group.Additional informationFundingThis study was supported by the Idex Université Paris Cité ANR-18-IDEX-0001 and by a research grant (DIAGNOR, ANR-16-CE28-0010-01) from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche, France.","PeriodicalId":47270,"journal":{"name":"Thinking & Reasoning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining the role of deliberation in de-bias training\",\"authors\":\"Esther Boissin, Serge Caparos, Wim De Neys\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13546783.2023.2259542\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AbstractDoes avoiding biased responding to reasoning problems and grasping the ­correct solution require engaging in effortful deliberation or can such solution insight be acquired more intuitively? In this study we set out to test the impact of deliberation on the efficiency of a de-bias training in which the problem logic was explained to participants. We focused on the infamous bat-and-ball problem and varied the degree of possible deliberation during the training session by manipulating time constraints and cognitive load. The results show that the less constrained the deliberation, the more participants improve. However, even under extremely stringent conditions (high time-pressure and dual task load), participants still show a significant improvement. Critically, this “intuitive” insight effect persists over two months. This suggests that deliberation helps reasoners benefit from the training, but it is not indispensable. We discuss critical applied and theoretical implications.Keywords: Reasoninginsightheuristics & biasesde-biasingintuition Disclosure statementNone.Open data statementRaw data can be downloaded from our OSF page (https://osf.io/3b4jy/?view_only=a388443c8fc34310b9f908fe847f077b).Notes1 Hence, whenever we report null findings, we cannot exclude that with a more powerful design the effects might be significant.2 Participants solved three training problems and read an explanation for each one. We focused on the problem solution times for the two problems after the first explanation (i.e., the third and fourth problem of the whole intervention).3 Given that all reading times were fixed at 8 seconds in the fast group (i.e., participants could not advance earlier), this analysis was not informative in this group.Additional informationFundingThis study was supported by the Idex Université Paris Cité ANR-18-IDEX-0001 and by a research grant (DIAGNOR, ANR-16-CE28-0010-01) from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche, France.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47270,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2023.2259542\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thinking & Reasoning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2023.2259542","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要为了避免对推理问题做出有偏见的反应并掌握正确的解决方案,是否需要进行努力的思考,或者这种解决方案的洞察力是否可以更直观地获得?在这项研究中,我们开始测试审议对向参与者解释问题逻辑的去偏见训练效率的影响。我们专注于臭名昭著的击球和球问题,并通过操纵时间限制和认知负荷来改变训练过程中可能考虑的程度。结果表明,审议约束越少,参与者的进步越多。然而,即使在极端苛刻的条件下(高时间压力和双重任务负载),参与者仍然表现出显著的改善。关键的是,这种“直觉”洞察力效应持续了两个多月。这表明深思熟虑有助于推理者从训练中受益,但它不是必不可少的。我们讨论了关键的应用和理论意义。关键词:推理洞察力、特征与偏见、偏见直觉、披露陈述开放数据声明可以从我们的OSF页面(https://osf.io/3b4jy/?view_only=a388443c8fc34310b9f908fe847f077b)下载数据库数据。注1因此,每当我们报告无效结果时,我们不能排除在更强大的设计中效果可能是显著的参与者解决了三个训练问题,并阅读了每个问题的解释。我们关注的是第一个解释后两个问题的问题解决时间(即整个干预的第三和第四个问题)考虑到快速组中所有的阅读时间都固定在8秒(即参与者不能提前阅读),该分析在该组中不具有信息性。本研究由巴黎城市Idex大学(ANR-18-IDEX-0001)和法国国家研究机构的研究基金(DIAGNOR, ANR-16-CE28-0010-01)支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Examining the role of deliberation in de-bias training
AbstractDoes avoiding biased responding to reasoning problems and grasping the ­correct solution require engaging in effortful deliberation or can such solution insight be acquired more intuitively? In this study we set out to test the impact of deliberation on the efficiency of a de-bias training in which the problem logic was explained to participants. We focused on the infamous bat-and-ball problem and varied the degree of possible deliberation during the training session by manipulating time constraints and cognitive load. The results show that the less constrained the deliberation, the more participants improve. However, even under extremely stringent conditions (high time-pressure and dual task load), participants still show a significant improvement. Critically, this “intuitive” insight effect persists over two months. This suggests that deliberation helps reasoners benefit from the training, but it is not indispensable. We discuss critical applied and theoretical implications.Keywords: Reasoninginsightheuristics & biasesde-biasingintuition Disclosure statementNone.Open data statementRaw data can be downloaded from our OSF page (https://osf.io/3b4jy/?view_only=a388443c8fc34310b9f908fe847f077b).Notes1 Hence, whenever we report null findings, we cannot exclude that with a more powerful design the effects might be significant.2 Participants solved three training problems and read an explanation for each one. We focused on the problem solution times for the two problems after the first explanation (i.e., the third and fourth problem of the whole intervention).3 Given that all reading times were fixed at 8 seconds in the fast group (i.e., participants could not advance earlier), this analysis was not informative in this group.Additional informationFundingThis study was supported by the Idex Université Paris Cité ANR-18-IDEX-0001 and by a research grant (DIAGNOR, ANR-16-CE28-0010-01) from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche, France.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Thinking & Reasoning
Thinking & Reasoning PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
11.50%
发文量
25
×
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