Matching bias in syllogistic reasoning: Evidence for a dual-process account from response times and confidence ratings

Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10545/565100
Title:
Matching bias in syllogistic reasoning: Evidence for a dual-process account from response times and confidence ratings
Authors:
Stupple, Edward J. N. ( 0000-0001-8545-9504 ) ; Ball, Linden J. ( 0000-0002-5099-0124 ) ; Ellis, Daniel
Abstract:
We examined matching bias in syllogistic reasoning by analysing response times, confidence ratings, and individual differences. Roberts’ (2005) “negations paradigm” was used to generate conflict between the surface features of problems and the logical status of conclusions. The experiment replicated matching bias effects in conclusion evaluation (Stupple & Waterhouse, 2009), revealing increased processing times for matching/logic “conflict problems”. Results paralleled chronometric evidence from the belief bias paradigm indicating that logic/belief conflict problems take longer to process than non-conflict problems (Stupple, Ball, Evans, & Kamal-Smith, 2011). Individuals’ response times for conflict problems also showed patterns of association with the degree of overall normative responding. Acceptance rates, response times, metacognitive confidence judgements, and individual differences all converged in supporting dual-process theory. This is noteworthy because dual-process predictions about heuristic/analytic conflict in syllogistic reasoning generalised from the belief bias paradigm to a situation where matching features of conclusions, rather than beliefs, were set in opposition to logic.
Affiliation:
University of Derby
Citation:
Stupple, Edward J. N., Ball, Linden J., Ellis, Daniel (2013), Matching bias in syllogistic reasoning: Evidence for a dual-process account from response times and confidence ratings, Thinking & Reasoning, 19 (1):54
Publisher:
Taylor and Francis
Journal:
Thinking & Reasoning
Issue Date:
Feb-2013
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10545/565100
DOI:
10.1080/13546783.2012.735622
Additional Links:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13546783.2012.735622
Type:
Article
Language:
en
ISSN:
1354-6783; 1464-0708
Appears in Collections:
Centre for Psychological Research

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorStupple, Edward J. N.en
dc.contributor.authorBall, Linden J.en
dc.contributor.authorEllis, Danielen
dc.date.accessioned2015-08-05T07:56:58Zen
dc.date.available2015-08-05T07:56:58Zen
dc.date.issued2013-02en
dc.identifier.citationStupple, Edward J. N., Ball, Linden J., Ellis, Daniel (2013), Matching bias in syllogistic reasoning: Evidence for a dual-process account from response times and confidence ratings, Thinking & Reasoning, 19 (1):54en
dc.identifier.issn1354-6783en
dc.identifier.issn1464-0708en
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/13546783.2012.735622en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10545/565100en
dc.description.abstractWe examined matching bias in syllogistic reasoning by analysing response times, confidence ratings, and individual differences. Roberts’ (2005) “negations paradigm” was used to generate conflict between the surface features of problems and the logical status of conclusions. The experiment replicated matching bias effects in conclusion evaluation (Stupple & Waterhouse, 2009), revealing increased processing times for matching/logic “conflict problems”. Results paralleled chronometric evidence from the belief bias paradigm indicating that logic/belief conflict problems take longer to process than non-conflict problems (Stupple, Ball, Evans, & Kamal-Smith, 2011). Individuals’ response times for conflict problems also showed patterns of association with the degree of overall normative responding. Acceptance rates, response times, metacognitive confidence judgements, and individual differences all converged in supporting dual-process theory. This is noteworthy because dual-process predictions about heuristic/analytic conflict in syllogistic reasoning generalised from the belief bias paradigm to a situation where matching features of conclusions, rather than beliefs, were set in opposition to logic.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherTaylor and Francisen
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13546783.2012.735622en
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to Thinking & Reasoningen
dc.subjectReasoningen
dc.subjectDual process theoryen
dc.subjectDeductionen
dc.subjectMatching biasen
dc.titleMatching bias in syllogistic reasoning: Evidence for a dual-process account from response times and confidence ratingsen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Derbyen
dc.identifier.journalThinking & Reasoningen
All Items in UDORA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.