Evidence for conflict detection from the self-reported conflict measure

IF 1.2 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Journal of Cognitive Psychology Pub Date : 2023-08-14 DOI:10.1080/20445911.2023.2241697
Debiao Zhu, Zhujing Hu, Dandan Nie, Jianyong Yang
{"title":"Evidence for conflict detection from the self-reported conflict measure","authors":"Debiao Zhu, Zhujing Hu, Dandan Nie, Jianyong Yang","doi":"10.1080/20445911.2023.2241697","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Human thinking is typically biased. A central question in dual process theories is whether people detect conflicts between heuristic and logical information. In the present study, we explored this issue. Participants were presented with conflict and non-conflict base-rate neglect problems and syllogism problems, followed by self-reported conflict measures determining the extent to which they considered alternative solutions after resolving each problem. Although the participants generally could not correctly answer the conflict problems, the results showed that their self-reported conflict measures in the incorrect conflict items were lower than those in the correct non-conflict items, indicating that the participants could recognise the conflict between heuristic and logical information. The implications of the ongoing debate on conflict detection are also discussed.","PeriodicalId":47483,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognitive Psychology","volume":"35 1","pages":"755 - 762"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognitive Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2023.2241697","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Human thinking is typically biased. A central question in dual process theories is whether people detect conflicts between heuristic and logical information. In the present study, we explored this issue. Participants were presented with conflict and non-conflict base-rate neglect problems and syllogism problems, followed by self-reported conflict measures determining the extent to which they considered alternative solutions after resolving each problem. Although the participants generally could not correctly answer the conflict problems, the results showed that their self-reported conflict measures in the incorrect conflict items were lower than those in the correct non-conflict items, indicating that the participants could recognise the conflict between heuristic and logical information. The implications of the ongoing debate on conflict detection are also discussed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从自我报告的冲突测量中发现冲突的证据
摘要人类思维通常带有偏见。双过程理论中的一个核心问题是人们是否发现启发式信息和逻辑信息之间的冲突。在本研究中,我们探讨了这个问题。参与者被介绍了冲突和非冲突基本率忽视问题以及三段论问题,然后是自我报告的冲突测量,确定他们在解决每个问题后考虑替代解决方案的程度。尽管参与者通常不能正确回答冲突问题,但结果表明,他们在不正确的冲突项目中的自我报告冲突测量低于在正确的非冲突项目中,表明参与者能够识别启发式信息和逻辑信息之间的冲突。还讨论了正在进行的关于冲突检测的辩论的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cognitive Psychology
Journal of Cognitive Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
15.40%
发文量
54
期刊最新文献
Eye-movement methodology reveals a shift in attention from threat to neutral stimuli with self-reported symptoms of social anxiety across children, adolescents and adults Individual differences and counterfactual thinking Distinct patterns of emotional processing in ADHD and anxiety. Evidence from an eye-movement Go/No-Go task Why I am not a Turing machine Self and mother referential processing in phonological false memory
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1