Publicação

Seeing the conflict: An attentional account of reasoning errors

Ver documento

Detalhes bibliográficos
Resumo:In judgment and reasoning, intuition and deliberation can agree on the same responses, or they can be in conflict and suggest different responses. Incorrect responses to conflict problems have traditionally been interpreted as a sign of faulty problem-solving—an inability to solve the conflict. However, such errors might emerge earlier, from insufficient attention to the conflict. To test this attentional hypothesis, we manipulated the conflict in reasoning problems and used eye-tracking to measure attention. Across several measures, correct responders paid more attention than incorrect responders to conflict problems, and they discriminated between conflict and no-conflict problems better than incorrect responders. These results are consistent with a two-stage account of reasoning, whereby sound problem solving in the second stage can only lead to accurate responses when sufficient attention is paid in the first stage.
Autores principais:Mata, André
Outros Autores:Ferreira, Mário Augusto Boto; Voss, Andreas; Kollei, Tanja
Assunto:Reasoning Intuition Dual process Bias Conflict detection Attention Eye-tracking
Ano:2017
País:Portugal
Tipo de documento:artigo
Tipo de acesso:acesso restrito
Instituição associada:Ispa-Instituto Universitário
Idioma:inglês
Origem:Repositório do Ispa - Instituto Universitário
Descrição
Resumo:In judgment and reasoning, intuition and deliberation can agree on the same responses, or they can be in conflict and suggest different responses. Incorrect responses to conflict problems have traditionally been interpreted as a sign of faulty problem-solving—an inability to solve the conflict. However, such errors might emerge earlier, from insufficient attention to the conflict. To test this attentional hypothesis, we manipulated the conflict in reasoning problems and used eye-tracking to measure attention. Across several measures, correct responders paid more attention than incorrect responders to conflict problems, and they discriminated between conflict and no-conflict problems better than incorrect responders. These results are consistent with a two-stage account of reasoning, whereby sound problem solving in the second stage can only lead to accurate responses when sufficient attention is paid in the first stage.