Abstract

The belief bias effect in reasoning (Evans et al., 1983) is the tendency for logical problems with believable conclusions (e.g., some addictive things are not cigarettes) to elicit more positive responses than those with unbelievable conclusions (some cigarettes are not addictive things). The effect of believability interacts with conclusion validity (see the lower rows of Table ​Table11 for example data), leading many researchers to conclude that reasoning accuracy is greater for problems with unbelievable conclusions (e.g., Oakhill and Johnson-Laird, 1985; Newstead et al., 1992; Quayle and Ball, 2000). Dube et al. (2010, 2011) [see also Heit and Rotello (2014)] demonstrated that the typical ANOVA analysis of these behavioral data was inappropriate, and showed that a signal detection based interpretation of the data reached a different conclusion, namely that the effect of conclusion believability was to shift subjects’ response bias to be more liberal. Trippas et al. (2013) also concluded that conclusion believability consistently affected response bias, but that reasoning accuracy was additionally affected by believability under certain conditions (i.e., higher cognitive ability, complex syllogisms, unlimited decision time).

Highlights

  • The belief bias effect in reasoning (Evans et al, 1983) is the tendency for logical problems with believable conclusions to elicit more positive responses than those with unbelievable conclusions

  • Neuroscience analyses have divided test trials into those for which validity and believability lead to the same conclusion and those for which they lead to different conclusions

  • In ERP, a late positivity for incongruent trials has been interpreted (Luo et al, 2008, 2013). These data suggest that right prefrontal cortex (rPFC) activation inhibits System 1 responding, a conclusion that is broadly consistent with the assumed inhibitory function of right inferior frontal cortex (Aron et al, 2014)

Read more

Summary

HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE

The neural correlates of belief bias: activation in inferior frontal cortex reflects response rate differences. The belief bias effect in reasoning (Evans et al, 1983) is the tendency for logical problems with believable conclusions (e.g., some addictive things are not cigarettes) to elicit more positive responses than those with unbelievable conclusions (some cigarettes are not addictive things). In ERP, a late positivity for incongruent trials has been interpreted (Luo et al, 2008, 2013) These data suggest that rPFC activation inhibits System 1 responding, a conclusion that is broadly consistent with the assumed inhibitory function of right inferior frontal cortex (Aron et al, 2014). Accuracy for the congruent trials, Ac, is measured using percent correct It is the average of the “valid” (hit) response rate in the believable condition (H B) and the “invalid” (correct rejection) response rate in the unbelievable condition (CRU): AC. The accuracy advantage seen for congruent trials is observed even though believability did Frontiers in Human Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org

Response rates
Findings
Some reorganization and simplification yields
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call