Predicting individual differences in conflict detection and bias susceptibility during reasoning

Abstract

One of the key components of the susceptibility to cognitive biases is the ability to monitor for conflict that may arise between intuitively cued "heuristic" answers and logical principles. While there is evidence that people differ in their ability to detect such conflicts, it is not clear which individual factors are driving these differences. In the present large-scale study (N = 399) we explored the role of cognitive ability, thinking dispositions, numeracy, cognitive reflection, and mindware instantiation (i.e. knowledge of logical principles) as potential predictors of individual differences in conflict detection ability and overall accuracy on a battery of reasoning problems. Results showed that mindware instantiation was the single best predictor of both conflict detection efficiency and reasoning accuracy. Cognitive reflection, thinking dispositions, numeracy, and cognitive ability played a significant but smaller role. The full regression model accounted for 40% of the variance in overall reasoning accuracy, but only 7% of the variance in conflict detection efficiency. We discuss the implications of these findings for popular process models of bias susceptibility.

Mindware Instantiation as a Predictor of Logical Intuitions in Cognitive Reflection Test

“…The findings of both Šrol and De Neys (2020) and Burič and Šrol (2020) are in line with the recent theoretical model presented by Stanovich (2018). In line with the earlier model of De Neys and Bonnefon (2013), the author claims that the mindware instantiation is the key element of normatively correct responses.…”

“…A more direct approach was taken by Burič and Šrol (2020), who examined predictors of the normatively correct type 1 responses. Their results showed a predictive ability of both the mindware instantiation and cognitive reflection, which predicted the conflict detection in the study of Šrol and De Neys (2020).…”

“…To be able to use these indicators in the analyses, it was necessary to determine indices of conflict detection capabilities. We calculated the indices for each participant (Frey, Johnson, & De Neys, 2018;Šrol & De Neys, 2020) as the sum of cases in which the participant successfully detected a conflict (i.e., needed more time to respond or entered lower confidence in incorrectly solved conflict problem compared to a correctly solved no-conflict problem). However, the number of items through which this index could be calculated varied across participants.…”

“…As in other studies (Frey, Johnson, & De Neys, 2018;Šrol & De Neys, 2020), we used the correctness of neutral problems to measure the mindware instantiation, which reflected basic knowledge needed to solve the CRT. They are called neutral because, unlike conflict and no-conflict problems, they do not elicit any heuristic answer.…”

“…First, the above-mentioned conflict detection studies show that the detection also takes place largely intuitively (De Neys, 2012Pennycook, 2018;Pennycook et al, 2015). In a recent study by Šrol and De Neys (2020), it was shown, that individual differences in form of mindware instantiation (i.e., the logical knowledge necessary to solve the heuristics and biases tasks), cognitive reflection and thinking dispositions emerged as significant predictors of the conflict detection. As stated by Burič and Šrol (2020), for the conflict to be detected, the participant needs to intuitively process the logical structure of the problem.…”