特定领域的经验和双过程思维

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Zoë A. Purcell, C. Wastell, Naomi Sweller
{"title":"特定领域的经验和双过程思维","authors":"Zoë A. Purcell, C. Wastell, Naomi Sweller","doi":"10.1080/13546783.2020.1793813","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Prominent dual process models assert that reasoning processes can transition from effortful (Type 2) to intuitive (Type 1) with increases in domain-specific experience. In two studies we directly examine this automation hypothesis. We examine the nature of the relationship between mathematical experience and performance on the cognitive reflection test (CRT; Frederick, 2005). We test performance and response time at different levels of experience and cognitive constraint. Participants are required to complete a secondary task of varying complexity while solving the CRT. In Study 1, we demonstrate changes in thinking Type across real-world differences in mathematical experience. In Study 2, convergent with Study 1, we demonstrate changes in thinking Type across a mathematical training paradigm. Our findings suggest that for some individuals low experience is associated with Type 1 processing, intermediate experience is associated with Type 2 processing, and high experience is associated with Type 1 processing. Whereas, for other individuals low experience is associated with ineffective Type 2 processing, intermediate experience is associated with effective Type 2 processing, and high experience is associated with Type 1 processing.","PeriodicalId":47270,"journal":{"name":"Thinking & Reasoning","volume":"13 1","pages":"239 - 267"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Domain-specific experience and dual-process thinking\",\"authors\":\"Zoë A. Purcell, C. Wastell, Naomi Sweller\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13546783.2020.1793813\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Prominent dual process models assert that reasoning processes can transition from effortful (Type 2) to intuitive (Type 1) with increases in domain-specific experience. In two studies we directly examine this automation hypothesis. We examine the nature of the relationship between mathematical experience and performance on the cognitive reflection test (CRT; Frederick, 2005). We test performance and response time at different levels of experience and cognitive constraint. Participants are required to complete a secondary task of varying complexity while solving the CRT. In Study 1, we demonstrate changes in thinking Type across real-world differences in mathematical experience. In Study 2, convergent with Study 1, we demonstrate changes in thinking Type across a mathematical training paradigm. Our findings suggest that for some individuals low experience is associated with Type 1 processing, intermediate experience is associated with Type 2 processing, and high experience is associated with Type 1 processing. Whereas, for other individuals low experience is associated with ineffective Type 2 processing, intermediate experience is associated with effective Type 2 processing, and high experience is associated with Type 1 processing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47270,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"239 - 267\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1793813\",\"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":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1793813","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: 16

摘要

突出的双过程模型认为,随着领域特定经验的增加,推理过程可以从费力型(类型2)过渡到直观型(类型1)。在两项研究中,我们直接检验了这种自动化假设。我们研究了数学经验与认知反射测试(CRT;弗雷德里克,2005)。我们在不同水平的经验和认知约束下测试表现和反应时间。在解决CRT问题时,参与者需要完成一项不同复杂程度的次要任务。在研究1中,我们展示了思维类型在现实世界数学经验差异中的变化。在研究2中,与研究1一致,我们展示了思维类型在数学训练范式中的变化。我们的研究结果表明,对一些个体来说,低经验与第1型加工有关,中等经验与第2型加工有关,高经验与第1型加工有关。而对于其他个体,低经验与无效的2型加工有关,中等经验与有效的2型加工有关,高经验与1型加工有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Domain-specific experience and dual-process thinking
Abstract Prominent dual process models assert that reasoning processes can transition from effortful (Type 2) to intuitive (Type 1) with increases in domain-specific experience. In two studies we directly examine this automation hypothesis. We examine the nature of the relationship between mathematical experience and performance on the cognitive reflection test (CRT; Frederick, 2005). We test performance and response time at different levels of experience and cognitive constraint. Participants are required to complete a secondary task of varying complexity while solving the CRT. In Study 1, we demonstrate changes in thinking Type across real-world differences in mathematical experience. In Study 2, convergent with Study 1, we demonstrate changes in thinking Type across a mathematical training paradigm. Our findings suggest that for some individuals low experience is associated with Type 1 processing, intermediate experience is associated with Type 2 processing, and high experience is associated with Type 1 processing. Whereas, for other individuals low experience is associated with ineffective Type 2 processing, intermediate experience is associated with effective Type 2 processing, and high experience is associated with Type 1 processing.
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