Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Fluency, the Feeling of Rightness, and Analytic Thinking Valerie Thompson Gordon Pennycook Jonathan Evans Jamie Prowse Turner.

Published byBarbara Chambers Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Fluency, the Feeling of Rightness, and Analytic Thinking Valerie Thompson Gordon Pennycook Jonathan Evans Jamie Prowse Turner."— Presentation transcript:

1 Fluency, the Feeling of Rightness, and Analytic Thinking Valerie Thompson Gordon Pennycook Jonathan Evans Jamie Prowse Turner

2 Metacognitive Reasoning Theory  Dual Process Theories Automatic Type 1 processes produce a default answer that may or may not be further analysed by deliberate Type 2 processes What processes monitor Type 1 outputs?  When is the default accepted or rejected?  Feeling of Rightness (FOR) Accompanies Type 1 output Feeling of certainty about that output  Akin to other metacognitive experiences, such as Feeling of Knowing, Judgement of Learning, etc.

3 FOR and Type 2 engagement FOR should predict P(Type 2) processing:  Weak FOR → high P(Type 2)  Strong FOR → low P(Type 2) → compelling illusions (Wason, Linda) FOR, like other metacognitive experiences should depend on fluency of retrieval  Fluency: Ease with which answers come to mind  More fluent → Strong FOR  Less fluent → Lower FOR

4 Evidence for Metacognitive Reasoning Theory (Thompson, Pennycook, & Prowse Turner, under review)  Conditional inference task  if p, then q; p. q?  N = 64, familiar materials, varied belief by validity, logic instructions, yes/no response  Conditional syllogisms  If p, then q; if q, then r; p. r?  N = 48, non-sense middle terms, varied belief by validity, logic instructions, yes/ no response  Base rate task  De Neys & Glumicic (2008): personality descriptions + baserate  N = 128, congruent, incongruent, neutral problems, no normative instructions, estimated probability

5 First/ intuitive answer FOR Problem Final answer FJC Final answer FJC Experimental Group Free Control Problem Two Response Paradigm Rethinking Time Answer Change

6 Evidence Summary  FOR predicts Type 2 engagement: Rethinking time  FOR ↑ → ↓ Rethinking time Probability of changing initial answer  FOR ↑ → ↓ Answer change (probability and degree)  FOR predicted by fluency to generate initial answer  time to generate Answer 1 ↓ →↑ FOR  Therefore, if fluency → FOR and FOR → Type 2 processing, then: Ho: Manipulating fluency should affect Type 2 processing  1. Fluency of processing  2. Fluency of production

7 Processing Fluency and Type 2 Engagement  Alter et al. (2007) manipulated fluency of processing  Experiment 1: CRT (Fredericks, 2005) clear (M = 1.9) vs degraded text (M = 2.5)  Experiment 3: Representativeness and base rates (Tom W) puffed cheeks (r =.43) vs furrowed brow (r =.74) separate group answered trivia; puffed more confident  Experiment 4: Syllogisms clear (M = 43%) vs degraded text (M = 64%) Separate group estimated difficulty without solving; clear less difficult Concluded fluency → Type 2 processing

8 Processing Fluency and Type 2 Engagement  Alter et al. (2007) manipulated fluency of processing  Experiment 1: CRT (Fredericks, 2005) clear (M = 1.9) vs degraded text (M = 2.5)  Experiment 3: Representativeness and base rates (Tom W) puffed cheeks (r =.43) vs furrowed brow (r =.74) separate group answered trivia; puffed more confident  Experiment 4: Syllogisms clear (M = 43%) vs degraded text (M = 64%) Separate group estimated difficulty without solving; clear less difficult Concluded fluency → Type 2 processing  Mediated by FOR?

9 Experiment 1 (and 2) with Gordon Pennycook and Jamie Prowse Turner  16 conditionals x 4 inferences = 64 items Two responses  Two groups (N = 48):  Clear text  Difficult text Experiment 2 (N = 64)  increased difficulty, included CRT Pooled data  Measures of Type 2 engagement should be lower for the fluent than non-fluent condition DVFluentNon Fluent t FOR (/7)5.435.49< 1 RT-1 (sec) 7.247.52< 1 Correct (%) 55 < 1 Rethink (sec) 6.435.62< 1 Change (%) 12101.20 Accept-1 (%) 71642.21* Accept-2 (%) 66621.17

10 Experiment 1 (and 2) with Gordon Pennycook and Jamie Prowse Turner  16 conditionals x 4 inferences = 64 items Two responses  Two groups (N = 48):  Clear text  Difficult text Experiment 2 (N = 64)  increased difficulty, included CRT Pooled data  Measures of Type 2 engagement should be lower for the fluent than non-fluent condition DVFluentNon Fluent t FOR (/7)5.435.49< 1 RT-1 (sec) 7.247.52< 1 Correct (%) 55 < 1 Rethink (sec) 6.435.62< 1 Change (%) 12101.20 Accept-1 (%) 71642.21* Accept-2 (%) 66621.17 CRT.78.96< 1

11 Experiment 1 (and 2) with Gordon Pennycook and Jamie Prowse Turner  16 conditionals x 4 inferences = 64 items Two responses  Two groups (N = 48):  Clear text  Difficult text Experiment 2 (N = 64)  increased difficulty, included CRT Pooled data  Measures of Type 2 engagement should be lower for the fluent than non-fluent condition DVFluentNon Fluent t FOR (/7)5.435.49< 1 RT-1 (sec) 7.247.52< 1 Correct (%) 55 < 1 Rethink (sec) 6.435.62< 1 Change (%) 12101.20 Accept-1 (%) 71642.21* Accept-2 (%) 66621.17 CRT.78 1.9.96 2.5 < 1

12 Experiment 1 (and 2) with Gordon Pennycook and Jamie Prowse Turner * * * * t (107) > 10.9, p <.001

13 Fluency of Responding vs Fluency of Processing  Ho: FOR is determined by the fluency with which initial answer produced Manipulating fluency of processing should affect FOR only if it affects fluency of production E1 and E2: text manipulation had no effect on fluency of production  Experiment 3: Manipulate fluency of production

14 Experiment 3 with Jonathan Evans  Matching bias in Wason task Full matching paradigm, arbitrary content  e.g., if the letter is not V, then the number is 8 Implicit negations  Cards presented one at a time Do you need to turn this card over? 32 trials (4 rules x 4 cards x 2 repetitions)  Two-response paradigm  24 U. of Saskatchewan students

15  Relative to non- matching, matching cards should be: “selected” more often responded to faster (fluency) promote stronger FOR’s engender less T2 processes:  rethinking time  probability of change  number correct? Experiment 3 with Jonathan Evans DVMatchNon- Match t “Select”-1 (%) 71504.11** “Select”-2 (%) 69552.81* RT-1 (sec)5.706.825.26** FOR (/7)5.264.876.49** Rethink (sec) 6.016.992.35* Change (%) 9.818.33.90** Correct (%) 61 < 1

16 Experiment 3 with Jonathan Evans ** * * t (21) > 4.20, p <.001

17 Conclusions and Future Directions  FOR predicts Type 2 engagement Rethinking time, probability of changing answers  Fluency of responding affects FOR Manipulations that decrease speed of responding:  decrease FOR’s  increase Type 2 engagement  Fluency of processing per se does not affect FOR’s Hard vs easy to read text did not affect FOR’s or Type 2 judgments But may affect Type 2 processing (Alter et al, 2007)  Differences in participant population, method, number of problems  Next: Fluent and disfluent versions of the CRT Syllogisms: accessibility of conclusion Matching in the truth table task

Download ppt "Fluency, the Feeling of Rightness, and Analytic Thinking Valerie Thompson Gordon Pennycook Jonathan Evans Jamie Prowse Turner."

Similar presentations

Introduction to Psychology

Introduction to Psychology
Does risk exist, and if it does, where does it live and how do we find it? Doug Crawford-Brown Professor of Environmental Sciences and Policy Director,

Does risk exist, and if it does, where does it live and how do we find it? Doug Crawford-Brown Professor of Environmental Sciences and Policy Director,
Deductive Reasoning. Are the following syllogism valid? A syllogism is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises All soldiers are sadistic Some.

Deductive Reasoning. Are the following syllogism valid? A syllogism is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises All soldiers are sadistic Some.
Descriptive Approach Pragmatic Reasoning Schemas (Cheng & Holyoak)

Descriptive Approach Pragmatic Reasoning Schemas (Cheng & Holyoak)
 Cognitive Modules › Background  Wason Selection Task › Purpose › Puzzles vs Social Contract problems  Fiddick & Erlich’s Paper › Introduction › Methods.

 Cognitive Modules › Background  Wason Selection Task › Purpose › Puzzles vs Social Contract problems  Fiddick & Erlich’s Paper › Introduction › Methods.
AKA THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD THE ACQUIREMENT OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.

AKA THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD THE ACQUIREMENT OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.
Fluency and Processing Styles The study of Alter et al. (2007):Alter et al. (2007): It is known that positive mood signal that the interaction between.

Fluency and Processing Styles The study of Alter et al. (2007):Alter et al. (2007): It is known that positive mood signal that the interaction between.
Inductive reasoning and implicit memory: evidence from intact and impaired memory systems Authors: Luisa Girelli, Carlo Semenza and Margarete Delazer.

Inductive reasoning and implicit memory: evidence from intact and impaired memory systems Authors: Luisa Girelli, Carlo Semenza and Margarete Delazer.
Significance Testing Chapter 13 Victor Katch Kinesiology.

Significance Testing Chapter 13 Victor Katch Kinesiology.
Reasoning What is the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning? What are heuristics, and how do we use them? How do we reason about categories?

Reasoning What is the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning? What are heuristics, and how do we use them? How do we reason about categories?
Solved the Maze? Start at phil’s house. At first, you can only make right turns through the maze. Each time you cross the red zigzag sign (under Carl’s.

Solved the Maze? Start at phil’s house. At first, you can only make right turns through the maze. Each time you cross the red zigzag sign (under Carl’s.
Evaluating Hypotheses Chapter 9. Descriptive vs. Inferential Statistics n Descriptive l quantitative descriptions of characteristics.

Evaluating Hypotheses Chapter 9. Descriptive vs. Inferential Statistics n Descriptive l quantitative descriptions of characteristics.
Models of Long-Term Memory

Models of Long-Term Memory
Evaluating Hypotheses Chapter 9 Homework: 1-9. Descriptive vs. Inferential Statistics n Descriptive l quantitative descriptions of characteristics ~

Evaluating Hypotheses Chapter 9 Homework: 1-9. Descriptive vs. Inferential Statistics n Descriptive l quantitative descriptions of characteristics ~
Control processes The kinds of mental processes carried out on a memory 3 main types –Encoding processes –Retention processes –Retrieval processes.

Control processes The kinds of mental processes carried out on a memory 3 main types –Encoding processes –Retention processes –Retrieval processes.
1 Psych 5500/6500 The t Test for a Single Group Mean (Part 5): Outliers Fall, 2008.

1 Psych 5500/6500 The t Test for a Single Group Mean (Part 5): Outliers Fall, 2008.
Chapter 3 Hypothesis Testing. Curriculum Object Specified the problem based the form of hypothesis Student can arrange for hypothesis step Analyze a problem.

Chapter 3 Hypothesis Testing. Curriculum Object Specified the problem based the form of hypothesis Student can arrange for hypothesis step Analyze a problem.
Inferential Statistics

Inferential Statistics
8/20/2015Slide 1 SOLVING THE PROBLEM The two-sample t-test compare the means for two groups on a single variable. the The paired t-test compares the means.

8/20/2015Slide 1 SOLVING THE PROBLEM The two-sample t-test compare the means for two groups on a single variable. the The paired t-test compares the means.
UNIT PLAN PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS FOR 9 th AND 10 th GRADE By EVANS ASUBONTENG.

UNIT PLAN PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS FOR 9 th AND 10 th GRADE By EVANS ASUBONTENG.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google