推理和认知控制,快和慢

IF 1.9 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Judgment and Decision Making Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1017/jdm.2023.32
Aikaterini Voudouri, Bence Bagó, G. Borst, Wim De Neys
{"title":"推理和认知控制,快和慢","authors":"Aikaterini Voudouri, Bence Bagó, G. Borst, Wim De Neys","doi":"10.1017/jdm.2023.32","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Influential ‘fast-and-slow’ dual process models suggest that sound reasoning requires the correction of fast, intuitive thought processes by slower, controlled deliberation. Recent findings with high-level reasoning tasks started to question this characterization. Here we tested the generalizability of these findings to low-level cognitive control tasks. More specifically, we examined whether people who responded accurately to the classic Stroop and Flanker tasks could also do so when their deliberate control was minimized. A two-response paradigm, in which people were required to give an initial ‘fast’ response under time–pressure and cognitive load, allowed us to identify the presumed intuitive answer that preceded the final ‘slow’ response given after deliberation. Across our studies, we consistently find that correct final Stroop and Flanker responses are often non-corrective in nature. Good performance in cognitive control tasks seems to be driven by accurate ‘fast’ intuitive processing, rather than by ‘slow’ controlled correction of these intuitions. We also explore the association between Stroop and reasoning performance and discuss implications for the dual process view of human cognition.","PeriodicalId":48045,"journal":{"name":"Judgment and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reasoning and cognitive control, fast and slow\",\"authors\":\"Aikaterini Voudouri, Bence Bagó, G. Borst, Wim De Neys\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/jdm.2023.32\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Influential ‘fast-and-slow’ dual process models suggest that sound reasoning requires the correction of fast, intuitive thought processes by slower, controlled deliberation. Recent findings with high-level reasoning tasks started to question this characterization. Here we tested the generalizability of these findings to low-level cognitive control tasks. More specifically, we examined whether people who responded accurately to the classic Stroop and Flanker tasks could also do so when their deliberate control was minimized. A two-response paradigm, in which people were required to give an initial ‘fast’ response under time–pressure and cognitive load, allowed us to identify the presumed intuitive answer that preceded the final ‘slow’ response given after deliberation. Across our studies, we consistently find that correct final Stroop and Flanker responses are often non-corrective in nature. Good performance in cognitive control tasks seems to be driven by accurate ‘fast’ intuitive processing, rather than by ‘slow’ controlled correction of these intuitions. We also explore the association between Stroop and reasoning performance and discuss implications for the dual process view of human cognition.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48045,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Judgment and Decision Making\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Judgment and Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/jdm.2023.32\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Judgment and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jdm.2023.32","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有影响力的“快慢”双重过程模型表明,合理的推理需要通过较慢的、有控制的思考来纠正快速、直觉的思维过程。最近对高级推理任务的研究结果开始质疑这种特征。在这里,我们测试了这些发现在低水平认知控制任务中的普遍性。更具体地说,我们研究了那些对经典的Stroop和Flanker任务做出准确反应的人,在刻意控制最小化时是否也能做到这一点。在双反应范式中,人们被要求在时间压力和认知负荷下给出最初的“快速”反应,这使我们能够在深思熟虑后给出最终的“缓慢”反应之前确定假定的直觉答案。在我们的研究中,我们始终发现正确的Stroop和Flanker最终反应通常是非纠正性的。在认知控制任务中的良好表现似乎是由准确的“快速”直觉处理驱动的,而不是由这些直觉的“缓慢”控制纠正驱动的。我们还探讨了Stroop与推理表现之间的关系,并讨论了人类认知的双重过程观的含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Reasoning and cognitive control, fast and slow
Influential ‘fast-and-slow’ dual process models suggest that sound reasoning requires the correction of fast, intuitive thought processes by slower, controlled deliberation. Recent findings with high-level reasoning tasks started to question this characterization. Here we tested the generalizability of these findings to low-level cognitive control tasks. More specifically, we examined whether people who responded accurately to the classic Stroop and Flanker tasks could also do so when their deliberate control was minimized. A two-response paradigm, in which people were required to give an initial ‘fast’ response under time–pressure and cognitive load, allowed us to identify the presumed intuitive answer that preceded the final ‘slow’ response given after deliberation. Across our studies, we consistently find that correct final Stroop and Flanker responses are often non-corrective in nature. Good performance in cognitive control tasks seems to be driven by accurate ‘fast’ intuitive processing, rather than by ‘slow’ controlled correction of these intuitions. We also explore the association between Stroop and reasoning performance and discuss implications for the dual process view of human cognition.
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
Judgment and Decision Making
Judgment and Decision Making PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
The benefits of deciding now and not later: The influence of the timing between acquiring knowledge and deciding on decision confidence, omission neglect bias, and choice deferral I want to believe: Prior beliefs influence judgments about the effectiveness of both alternative and scientific medicine The final step effect Choosing more aggressive commitment contracts for others than for the self Systematic metacognitive reflection helps people discover far-sighted decision strategies: A process-tracing experiment
×
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