Abstract
The dual process framework posits that we reason using the quick System 1, and the deliberate System 2, both of which are part of our “adaptive toolbox”. The Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) estimates which system was used to solve a reasoning problem. Usually, the CRT tasks are solved incorrectly by using System 1, and correctly through System 2. We have applied the reference point hypothesis to the tasks of the CRT and proposed that this change would facilitate the switch between systems, resulting in better performance on the version of the test with a reference point, compared to the CRT without one. The results confirmed our assumptions, as evidenced by a generally higher score on the CRT with a reference point, albeit with different effects between items.
Highlights
The dual process framework posits that we reason using the quick System 1, and the deliberate System 2, both of which are part of our “adaptive toolbox”
Our study was conducted with the aim of examining the effect of introducing a reference point into conflict problem-solving tasks, in order to trigger a rational approach to the same task
This is something of a “hot topic” in the research-grounded dual-process approach, and an extensive number of studies in the field currently aim to provide an answer to the question: “What could make us think rationally, not quickly and heuristically, in situations which cause conflicting cognitive responses?” (Evans & Stanovich, 2013; Pennycook, 2018; Primi et al, 2016)
Summary
The dual process framework posits that we reason using the quick System 1, and the deliberate System 2, both of which are part of our “adaptive toolbox”. The link between System 1 and System 2, as well as the nature of that relationship is currently the “it” question in the field of dual process theories This issue can be approached from two positions, the first one being that there is a conflict between the two systems (Evans, 2006; Evans & Stanovich, 2013; Fontinha & Mascarenhas, 2017). The idea of conflict automatically implies that System 2 was autonomously activated from the start, by a stimulus (task) This violates the basic assumption of the dual process theories, which posits that System 2 is deliberately, not autonomously, activated. While the participants’ answers can be either correct or wrong, the wrong answers CRT items facilitate are, to some extent, predictable - that is, when participants make a mistake, a large percentage of the incorrect answers can be clustered as "typically erroneous”, and presumably stemming from heuristics
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
