Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Increasing cognitive inhibition with a difficult prior task: implications for mathematical thinking

  • Original Article
  • Published:
ZDM Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dual-process theories posit two distinct types of cognitive processing: Type 1, which does not use working memory making it fast and automatic, and Type 2, which does use working memory making it slow and effortful. Mathematics often relies on the inhibition of pervasive Type 1 processing to apply new skills or knowledge that require Type 2 processing. In two studies, we demonstrate that giving participants a difficult task (Raven’s Matrices) before a task that requires the inhibition of intuitive responses (the Cognitive Reflection Test) significantly improves performance. Our findings suggest that encountering a difficult task that requires Type 2 processing before completing a task that requires inhibition of Type 1 processing may encourage an enduring ‘Type 2’ mindset, whereby participants are more likely to spontaneously use Type 2 processing for a period of time. Implications for mathematics education are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Matching bias is a perceptual bias to focus on items that have been explicitly named. For example, in the Wason Selection Task, the rule ‘if there is an A on one side of the card then there is a 3 on the other side’ can prompt participants into focusing only on the ‘A’ and ‘3’ cards and not considering the others (Wason 1968).

  2. Condition had a marginally significant effect on the number of intuitive errors, U(61) = 337.0, z = −1.90, p = 0.058, and no effect on the number of ‘other’ (not intuitive but not correct) errors, U(61) = 430, z = −0.74, p = 0.462.

  3. Condition also had a significant effect on number of intuitive answers, H(3) = 13.46, p = 0.004, but not on the number of ‘other’ (not intuitive but not correct) answers, H(3) = 2.31, p = 0.512.

References

  • Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2006). Predicting short-term stock fluctuations by using processing fluency. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(24), 9369–9372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attridge, N., & Inglis, M. (2013). Advanced mathematical study and the development of conditional reasoning skills. PLOS ONE, 8(7), e69399.

  • Babai, R., Shalev, E., & Stavy, B. (2015). A warning intervention improves students’ ability to overcome intuitive interference. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(5), (this issue).

  • Birnbaum, M. H. (2004). Human research and data collection via the Internet. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 803–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornemann, B., Foth, M., Horn, J., Ries, J., Warmuth, E., Wartenburger, I., & van der Meer, E. (2010). Mathematical cognition: Individual differences in resource allocation. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42(6), 555–567.

  • Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chernoff, E. J. (2012). Recognizing revisitation of the representativeness heuristic: An analysis of answer key attributes. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(7), 941–952.

  • Christou, K. P. (2015). Natural number bias in operations with missing numbers. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(5), (this issue).

  • Clement, J., Lockhead, J., & Monk, G. (1981). Translation difficulties in learning mathematics. American Mathematics Monthly, 88, 286–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, K., Post, T., & Currier, S. (1993). Learning and teaching ratio and proportion: Research implications. In D. Owens (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom (pp. 159–178). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

  • De Neys, W., Vartanian, O., & Goel, V. (2008). Smarter than we think: When our brains detect that we are biased. Psychological Science, 19(5), 483–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 454–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 378–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B., Handley, S. J., & Bacon, A. M. (2009). Reasoning Under Time Pressure. Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie), 56(2), 77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B., Newstead, S. E., & Byrne, R. M. (Eds.). (1993). Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Hove: Psychology Press.

  • Evans, J. S. B., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42.

  • Friese, M., Wänke, M., & Plessner, H. (2006). Implicit consumer preferences and their influence on product choice. Psychology and Marketing, 23(9), 727–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillard, E., Van Dooren, W., Schaeken, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2009a). Dual processes in the psychology of mathematics education and cognitive psychology. Human Development, 52(2), 95–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillard, E., Van Dooren, W., Schaeken, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2009b). Proportional reasoning as a heuristic-based process: Time constraint and dual task considerations. Experimental Psychology, 56(2), 92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillard, E., Van Dooren, W., Schaeken, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2009c). Processing time evidence for a default-interventionist model of probability judgments. In Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1792–1797). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Gómez-Chacón, I. M., García-Madruga, J. A., Vila, J. Ó., Elosúa, M. R., & Rodríguez, R. (2014). The dual processes hypothesis in mathematics performance: Beliefs, cognitive reflection, working memory and reasoning. Learning and Individual Differences, 29, 67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59(2), 93.

  • Hammond, D. (2011). Health warning messages on tobacco products: A review. Tobacco Control, 20(5), 327–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hecht, H., Oesker, M., Kaiser, A., Civelek, H., & Stecker, T. (1999). A perception experiment with time-critical graphics animation on the World-Wide Web. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 31(3), 439–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houdé, O., Zago, L., Mellet, E., Moutier, S., Pineau, A., Mazoyer, B., & Tzourio-Mazoyer, N. (2000). Shifting from the perceptual brain to the logical brain: The neural impact of cognitive inhibition training. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(5), 721–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janiszewski, C., & Meyvis, T. (2001). Effects of brand logo complexity, repetition, and spacing on processing fluency and judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 18–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krantz, J. H., & Dalal, R. (2000). Validity of Web-based psychological research. In M. H. Birnbaum (Ed.), Psychological experiments on the Internet (pp. 35–60). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lem, S. (2015). The intuitiveness of the law of large numbers. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(5), (this issue).

  • Lem, S., Onghena, P., Verschaffel, L., & Van Dooren, W. (2013). The heuristic interpretation of box plots. Learning and Instruction, 26, 22–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leron, U. (2010). The power of natural thinking: Applications of cognitive psychology to mathematics education. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 6, pp. 9–20). Columbus: Ohio State University.

  • Leron, U., & Hazzan, O. (2006). The rationality debate: Application of cognitive psychology to mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(2), 105–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubin, A., Simon, G., Houdé, O., & De Neys, W. (2015). Inhibition, conflict detection and number conservation. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(5), (this issue).

  • Mason, W., & Watts, D. J. (2010). Financial incentives and the performance of crowds. ACM SigKDD Explorations Newsletter, 11(2), 100–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obersteiner, A., Van Dooren, W., Van Hoof, J., & Verschaffel, L. (2013). The natural number bias and magnitude representation in fraction comparison by expert mathematicians. Learning and Instruction, 28, 64–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). The secret life of fluency. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(6), 237–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piper, A. I. (1998). Conducting social science laboratory experiments on the World Wide Web. Library and Information Science Research, 20, 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pontin, J. (2007, March 25). Artificial intelligence: With help from the humans. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/business/yourmoney/25Stream.html. Accessed 10 April 2014.

  • Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven’s advanced progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. San Antonio: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reips, U. D. (2000). The Web experiment method: Advantages, disadvantages, and solutions. In M. H. Birnbaum (Ed.), Psychological experiments on the Internet (pp. 89–117). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reips, U. D., & Neuhaus, C. (2002). WEXTOR: A Web-based tool for generating and visualizing experimental designs and procedures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 34(2), 234–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sá, W. C., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (1999). The domain specificity and generality of belief bias: Searching for a generalizable critical thinking skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 497–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime (Version 2.0). Computer software and manual. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.

  • Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory? In Two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 55–88).

  • Stavy, R., & Babai, R. (2010). Overcoming intuitive interference in mathematics: Insights from behavioral, brain imaging and intervention studies. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42(6), 621–633.

  • Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (1996). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: the case of ‘more of A — more of B’. International Journal of Science Education, 18(6), 653–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suri, S., Goldstein, D. G., & Mason, W. A. (2011, August). Honesty in an Online Labor Market. In Human computation: Papers from the 2011 AAAI Workshop (WS-11-11).

  • Thompson, V. A. (2009). Dual process theories: A metacognitive perspective. In Two minds: Dual processes and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Thompson, V. A., Prowse Turner, J. A., & Pennycook, G. (2011). Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63(3), 107–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, V. A., Turner, J. A. P., Pennycook, G., Ball, L. J., Brack, H., Ophir, Y., & Ackerman, R. (2013). The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency as metacognitive cues for initiating analytic thinking. Cognition, 128(2), 237–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tirosh, D., Stavy, R., & Cohen, S. (1998). Cognitive conflict and intuitive rules. International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1257–1269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vamvakoussi, X., Van Dooren, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2012). Naturally biased? In search for reaction time evidence for a natural number bias in adults. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(3), 344–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Hessels, A., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2005). Not everything is proportional: Effects of age and problem type on propensities for overgeneralization. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 57–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Hoof, J., Janssen, R., Verschaffel, L., & Van Dooren, W. (2015). Inhibiting natural knowledge in fourth graders: Towards a comprehensive test instrument. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(5), (this issue).

  • Van Hoof, J., Lijnen, T., Verschaffel, L., & Van Dooren, W. (2013). Are secondary school students still hampered by the natural number bias? A reaction time study on fraction comparison tasks. Research in Mathematics Education, 15(2), 154–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(3), 273–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Pain Research, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK

    Nina Attridge

  2. Mathematics Education Centre, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK

    Matthew Inglis

Authors
  1. Nina Attridge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew Inglis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nina Attridge.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Attridge, N., Inglis, M. Increasing cognitive inhibition with a difficult prior task: implications for mathematical thinking. ZDM Mathematics Education 47, 723–734 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0656-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0656-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation