A carregar...
Projeto de investigação
Sem título
Financiador
Autores
Publicações
Seeing the conflict: An attentional account of reasoning errors
Publication . Mata, André; Ferreira, Mário Augusto Boto; Voss, Andreas; Kollei, Tanja
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.
Analytic and heuristic processes in the detection and resolution of conflict
Publication . Ferreira, Mário Augusto Boto; Mata, André; Donkin, Christopher; Sherman, Steven J.; Ihmels, Max
Previous research with the ratio-bias task found
larger response latencies for conflict trials where the
heuristic- and analytic-based responses are assumed to be in
opposition (e.g., choosing between 1/10 and 9/100 ratios of
success) when compared to no-conflict trials where both processes
converge on the same response (e.g., choosing between
1/10 and 11/100). This pattern is consistent with parallel dualprocess
models, which assume that there is effective, rather
than lax, monitoring of the output of heuristic processing. It is,
however, unclear why conflict resolution sometimes fails.
Ratio-biased choices may increase because of a decline in
analytical reasoning (leaving heuristic-based responses unopposed)
or to a rise in heuristic processing (making it more
difficult for analytic processes to override the heuristic preferences).
Using the process-dissociation procedure, we found
that instructions to respond logically and response speed
affected analytic (controlled) processing (C), leaving heuristic
processing (H) unchanged, whereas the intuitive preference
for large nominators (as assessed by responses to equal ratio
trials) affected H but not C. These findings create new
challenges to the debate between dual-process and singleprocess
accounts, which are discussed.
Unidades organizacionais
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Contribuidores
Financiadores
Entidade financiadora
Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
Programa de financiamento
3599-PPCDT
Número da atribuição
PTDC/PSI-PSO/117009/2010