谁来检测和为什么:认知特征的个体差异如何支撑对推理任务的不同类型的反应?

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Nikola Erceg, Zvonimir Galić, Andreja Bubić, Dino Jelić
{"title":"谁来检测和为什么:认知特征的个体差异如何支撑对推理任务的不同类型的反应?","authors":"Nikola Erceg, Zvonimir Galić, Andreja Bubić, Dino Jelić","doi":"10.1080/13546783.2022.2108897","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract People can solve reasoning tasks in different ways depending on how much conflict they detected and whether they were accurate or not. The hybrid dual-process model presumes that these different types of responses correspond to different strengths of logical intuitions, with correct responses given with little conflict detection indicating very strong, and incorrect responses given with little conflict detection very weak logical intuitions. Across two studies, we observed that individual differences in abilities, skills, and dispositions underpinned these different response types, with correct non-detection trials being related to highest, and incorrect non-detection trials to lowest scores on these traits, both for cognitive reflection and belief-bias tasks. In sum, it seems that every individual difference variable that we measured was important for the development of strong logical intuitions, with numeracy and the need for cognition being especially important for intuitive correct responding to cognitive reflection tasks. In line with the hybrid dual-process model, we argue that abilities and dispositions serve primarily for developing mindware and strong intuitions, and not for detecting conflict, which has repercussions for the validity of these tasks as measures of reflection/analytical thinking.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who detects and why: how do individual differences in cognitive characteristics underpin different types of responses to reasoning tasks?\",\"authors\":\"Nikola Erceg, Zvonimir Galić, Andreja Bubić, Dino Jelić\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13546783.2022.2108897\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract People can solve reasoning tasks in different ways depending on how much conflict they detected and whether they were accurate or not. The hybrid dual-process model presumes that these different types of responses correspond to different strengths of logical intuitions, with correct responses given with little conflict detection indicating very strong, and incorrect responses given with little conflict detection very weak logical intuitions. Across two studies, we observed that individual differences in abilities, skills, and dispositions underpinned these different response types, with correct non-detection trials being related to highest, and incorrect non-detection trials to lowest scores on these traits, both for cognitive reflection and belief-bias tasks. In sum, it seems that every individual difference variable that we measured was important for the development of strong logical intuitions, with numeracy and the need for cognition being especially important for intuitive correct responding to cognitive reflection tasks. In line with the hybrid dual-process model, we argue that abilities and dispositions serve primarily for developing mindware and strong intuitions, and not for detecting conflict, which has repercussions for the validity of these tasks as measures of reflection/analytical thinking.\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2022.2108897\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2022.2108897","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

人们可以用不同的方法来解决推理任务,这取决于他们检测到的冲突的多少以及他们是否准确。混合双过程模型假设这些不同类型的反应对应于不同的逻辑直觉强度,在很少冲突检测的情况下给出的正确反应表明逻辑直觉很强,而在很少冲突检测的情况下给出的错误反应表明逻辑直觉很弱。在两项研究中,我们观察到,在能力、技能和性格上的个体差异支撑着这些不同的反应类型,在认知反射和信念偏见任务中,正确的非检测试验与这些特征的最高分数相关,而错误的非检测试验与这些特征的最低分数相关。总而言之,我们测量的每一个个体差异变量似乎都对强逻辑直觉的发展很重要,其中计算能力和认知需求对于直觉正确地响应认知反射任务尤为重要。与混合双过程模型一致,我们认为能力和倾向主要用于发展思维和强烈的直觉,而不是用于检测冲突,这对这些任务作为反思/分析思维的衡量标准的有效性产生了影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Who detects and why: how do individual differences in cognitive characteristics underpin different types of responses to reasoning tasks?
Abstract People can solve reasoning tasks in different ways depending on how much conflict they detected and whether they were accurate or not. The hybrid dual-process model presumes that these different types of responses correspond to different strengths of logical intuitions, with correct responses given with little conflict detection indicating very strong, and incorrect responses given with little conflict detection very weak logical intuitions. Across two studies, we observed that individual differences in abilities, skills, and dispositions underpinned these different response types, with correct non-detection trials being related to highest, and incorrect non-detection trials to lowest scores on these traits, both for cognitive reflection and belief-bias tasks. In sum, it seems that every individual difference variable that we measured was important for the development of strong logical intuitions, with numeracy and the need for cognition being especially important for intuitive correct responding to cognitive reflection tasks. In line with the hybrid dual-process model, we argue that abilities and dispositions serve primarily for developing mindware and strong intuitions, and not for detecting conflict, which has repercussions for the validity of these tasks as measures of reflection/analytical thinking.
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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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