Advertisement

The development of fast and slow inferential responding: Evidence for a parallel development of rule-based and belief-based intuitions

  • Henry MarkovitsEmail author
  • Pier-Luc de Chantal
  • Janie Brisson
  • Émilie Gagnon-St-Pierre
Article
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

Dual process theories postulate the existence of two levels of processing, Type 1, which uses belief-based cues to make very rapid inferences, and Type 2, which uses more conscious, working memory-based processes that are, in principle, capable of making rule-based judgments. There is a common assumption that Type 1 processes are more rapidly produced, while Type 2 processes take more time. Evidence for this assumption is mixed. Recently, Newman, Gibb, and Thompson (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(7): 1154, 2017) have provided clear evidence that very fast responses use a combination of both belief-based and rule-based cues. In these studies, we initially replicated this basic result with adults using a different methodology and extended them to examine in greater detail patterns of change with restricted time. The results also show the same combination of rule-based and belief-based cues in fast responses, and suggest that time constraints differentially affect each form of cue. We then examined the developmental pattern of both fast and slow responding. Children aged between 8 and 10 years of age were examined using the methodology of the initial study. Results show that both developmental patterns and the effect of reduced time on children produce parallel changes in both belief-based and rule-based responding. These results suggest the existence of two simultaneously developing processes, consistent with a dual-strategy model of reasoning.

Keywords

Reasoning Development Logical intuition Dual strategy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a Discovery grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to HM.

Open Practices Statement

The data and materials for all experiments are available on demand and none of the experiments was preregistered.

References

  1. Barrouillet, P., & Lecas, J.-F. (1999). Mental models in conditional reasoning and working memory. Thinking & Reasoning, 5(4), 289-302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. De Neys, W. (2006). Dual processing in reasoning: Two systems but one reasoner. Psychological Science, 17(5), 428-433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. De Neys, W. (2012). Bias and conflict a case for logical intuitions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(1), 28-38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Neys, W., & Glumicic, T. (2008). Conflict monitoring in dual process theories of thinking. Cognition, 106(3), 1248-1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Neys, W., & Vanderputte, K. (2011). When less is not always more: Stereotype knowledge and reasoning development. Developmental Psychology, 47(2), 432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49(8), 709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans, J. S. B. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 378-395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans, J. S. B., Curtis-Holmes, J. (2005). Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 11(4), 382-389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans, J. S. B., Over, D. E., & Handley, S. J. (2005). Suppositionals, extensionality, and conditionals: A critique of the mental model theory of Johnson-Laird and Byrne (2002). Psychological Review, 112, 1040-1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaillard, V., Barrouillet, P., Jarrold, C., & Camos, V. (2011). Developmental differences in working memory: Where do they come from? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110(3), 469-479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gauffroy, C., & Barrouillet, P. (2009). Heuristic and analytic processes in mental models for conditionals: An integrative developmental theory. Developmental Review, 29(4), 249-282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Handley, S. J., Newstead, S. E., & Trippas, D. (2011). Logic, beliefs, and instruction: A test of the default interventionist account of belief bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(1), 28.Google Scholar
  16. Janveau-Brennan, G., Markovits, H. (1999). The development of reasoning with causal conditionals. Developmental Psychology, 35(4), 904-911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. (1994). Models, necessity, and the search for counter-examples. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17(4), 775-777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. . (1991). Deduction. Hove & London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (2002). Conditionals: A theory of meaning, pragmatics and inference. Psychological Review, 109, 646-678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow: Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  21. Kruglanski, A. W., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles. Psychological Review, 118(1), 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Markovits, H. (2017). In the beginning stages: Conditional reasoning with category based and causal premises in 8-to 10-year olds. Cognitive Development, 41, 1-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Markovits, H., Brisson, J., & de Chantal, P.-L. (2017). Logical reasoning versus information processing in the dual-strategy model of reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(1), 72.Google Scholar
  24. Markovits, H., Brisson, J., de Chantal, P.-L., & Thompson, V. A. (2017). Interactions between inferential strategies and belief bias. Memory & Cognition, 1-11.Google Scholar
  25. Markovits, H., Brunet, M.-L., Thompson, V., & Brisson, J. (2013). Direct evidence for a dual process model of deductive inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 49(6), 1213-1222.Google Scholar
  26. Markovits, H. Thompson, V. (2008). Different developmental patterns of simple deductive and probabilistic inferential reasoning. . Memory and Cognition, 36(6), 1066-1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Markovits, H., Trémolière, B., & Blanchette, I. (2018). Reasoning strategies modulate gender differences in emotion processing. Cognition, 170, 76-83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morsanyi, K., & Handley, S. J. (2012). Logic feels so good—I like it! Evidence for intuitive detection of logicality in syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 38(3), 596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Newman, I. R., Gibb, M., & Thompson, V. A. (2017). Rule-based reasoning is fast and belief-based reasoning can be slow: Challenging current explanations of belief-bias and base-rate neglect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(7), 1154.Google Scholar
  30. Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2003). Conditional probability and the cognitive science of conditional reasoning. Mind & Language, 18(4), 359-379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (2007). Baysian rationality. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Osman, M. (2004). An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 988-1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2012). Are we good at detecting conflict during reasoning? Cognition, 124(1), 101-106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Quinn, S., & Markovits, H. (1998). Conditional reasoning, causality, and the structure of semantic memory: Strength of association as a predictive factor for content effects. Cognition, 68(3), B93-B101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schwartz, F., Epinat-Duclos, J., Léone, J., & Prado, J. (2017). The neural development of conditional reasoning in children: Different mechanisms for assessing the logical validity and likelihood of conclusions. Neuroimage, 163, 264-275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Siegel, L. S., & Ryan, E. B. (1989). The development of working memory in normally achieving and subtypes of learning disabled children. Child Development, 973-980.Google Scholar
  37. Simon, G., Lubin, A., Houdé, O., & De Neys, W. (2015). Anterior cingulate cortex and intuitive bias detection during number conservation. Cognitive Neuroscience, 6(4), 158-168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3-22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational?: Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stanovich, K. E., & Toplak, M. E. (2012). Defining features versus incidental correlates of Type 1 and Type 2 processing. Mind & Society, 11(1), 3-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thompson, V. A., Prowse Turner, Jamie A., Pennycook, G. (2011). Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63, 107-140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 & Cognition, 39(7), 1275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Verschueren, N., Schaeken, W., & d'Ydewalle, G. (2005). Everyday conditional reasoning: A working memory-dependent tradeoff between counter-example and likelihood use. Memory & Cognition, 33(1), 107-119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henry Markovits
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pier-Luc de Chantal
    • 1
  • Janie Brisson
    • 1
  • Émilie Gagnon-St-Pierre
    • 1
  1. 1.Département de PsychologieUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations