Bats, balls, and substitution sensitivity: cognitive misers are no happy fools
Influential work on human thinking suggests that our judgment is often biased because we minimize cognitive effort and intuitively substitute hard questions by easier ones. A key question is whether or not people realize that they are doing this and notice their mistake. Here, we test this claim with one of the most publicized examples of the substitution bias, the bat-and-ball problem. We designed an isomorphic control version in which reasoners experience no intuitive pull to substitute. Results show that people are less confident in their substituted, erroneous bat-and-ball answer than in their answer on the control version that does not give rise to the substitution. Contrary to popular belief, this basic finding indicates that biased reasoners are not completely oblivious to the substitution and sense that their answer is questionable. This calls into question the characterization of the human reasoner as a happy fool who blindly answers erroneous questions without realizing it.
- 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, 569–576. CrossRef
- Berk, R. A. (2006). Thirteen strategies to measure college teaching: A consumer’ s guide to rating scale Construction, assessement, and decision making for faculty, administrators, and clinicians. Sterling: Stylus.
- Bourgeois-Gironde, S., & Vanderhenst, J. B. (2009). How to open the door to System 2: Debiasing the Bat and Ball problem. In S. Watanabe, A. P. Bloisdell, L. Huber, & A. Young (Eds.), Rational animals, irrational humans (pp. 235–252). Tokyo: Keio University Press.
- De Neys, W. (2012). Bias and conflict: A case for logical intuitions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 28–38. CrossRef
- De Neys, W., Cromheeke, S., & Osman, M. (2011). Biased but in doubt: Conflict and decision confidence. PLoS ONE, e15954. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015954
- De Neys, W., & Feremans, V. (2012). Development of heuristic bias detection in elementary school. Developmental Psychology. doi: 10.1037/a0028320. ISSN: 0012–1649.
- Evans, J. B. S. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278. CrossRef
- Evans, J. B. S. T. (2010). Intuition and reasoning: a dual process perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 313–326. CrossRef
- Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42. CrossRef
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Strauss, Giroux.
- Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics & biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81). New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
- Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 267–293). New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Koriat, A. (1993). How do we know that we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing. Psychological Review, 100, 609–639. CrossRef
- Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). The secret life of fluency. Trends in Cognitive Science, 12, 237–241. CrossRef
- Stanovich, K. E. (2010). Rationality and the reflective mind. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
- Thompson, V. A. (2009). Dual process theories: A metacognitive perspective. In J. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- Thompson, V. A., & Morsanyi, K. (2012). Analytic thinking: Do you feel like it? Mind & Society, 11, 93–105. CrossRef
- Thompson, V. A., Turner, J. P., & Pennycook, G. (2011). Choosing between intuition and reason: The role of metacognition in initiating analytic thinking. Cognitive Psychology, 63, 107–140. CrossRef
- Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2011). The cognitive reflection test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Memory and Cognition, 39, 1275–1289. CrossRef
- Bats, balls, and substitution sensitivity: cognitive misers are no happy fools
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Volume 20, Issue 2 , pp 269-273
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Judgment and decision making
- Decision making
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. CNRS, Unité 3521 LaPsyDÉ, Paris, France
- 2. Université Paris Descartes, Unité 3521 LaPsyDÉ, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
- 3. Université de Caen Basse–Normandie, Unité 3521 LaPsyDÉ, Caen, France
- 4. LaPsyDÉ (Unité CNRS 3521, Université Paris Descartes), Sorbonne - Labo A. Binet, 46, rue Saint Jacques, 75005, Paris, France