The Smart System 1: evidence for the intuitive nature of correct responding on the bat-and-ball problem

Abstract

Influential work on reasoning and decision making has popularized the idea that sound reasoning requires correction of fast, intuitive thought processes by slower and more demanding deliberation. We present seven studies that question this corrective view of human thinking. We focused on the very problem that has been widely featured as the paradigmatic illustration of the corrective view, the wellknown bat-and-ball problem. A two-response paradigm in which people were required to give an initial response under time-pressure and cognitive load allowed us to identify the presumed intuitive response that preceded the final response given after deliberation. Across our studies we observe that correct final responses are often non-corrective in nature. Many reasoners who manage to answer the bat-and-ball problem correctly after deliberation already solved it correctly when they reasoned under conditions that minimized deliberation in the initial response phase. This suggests that sound bat-and-ball reasoners do not necessarily need to deliberate to correct their intuitions, their intuitions are often already correct. Pace the corrective view, findings suggest that in these cases they deliberate to verify correct intuitive insights.

Logic, Fast and Slow: Advances in Dual-Process Theorizing

“…This procedure again helps to minimize possible deliberation. The critical finding is that many reasoners who give a logic final response (i.e., after deliberation was allowed) already gave this response in the initial response stage in which they had to reason intuitively (Bago & De Neys, 2017, 2019a. Hence, logical responders do not necessarily need to deliberate to override a faulty intuition; often their intuitive response is already logical.…”

A developmental study of the bat/ball problem of CRT: How to override the bias and its relation to executive functioning

“…However, the assertion that rational thinking substitute to heuristic thinking has been highly criticized by some recent dual-process accounts (see Reyna & Brainerd, 2011;Stanovich et al, 2011). This position would be more compatible with the alternative explanation of bat/ball problem that maintains that a fast, automatic, and autonomous System 1 could cue a correct logical response from the start of the reasoning process without the evolvement of executive processes (see Bago & De Neys, 2017, 2019De Neys, 2017;De Neys et al, 2013;Johnson et al, 2016) which remind to innately specified processing modules/procedures, whose processing result could be subsequently validated by System 2 (see Bago & de Neys, 2019). 6 Whether System 2 reflexive thinking replaces System 1 or helps to validate System 1 correct intuitions is an open question that our results cannot elucidate.…”

“…According to the dual‐processes framework (Kahneman & Frederick, ), the erroneous answer provided for this item exemplifies the lax monitoring of System 2 (logic and analytic) over the System 1 output (intuitive and heuristic), as the correct answer to this item requires both the monitoring of initial impressions and the ability to accurately reason. Alternatively, other authors (see Bago & De Neys, , ; De Neys, ; De Neys, Rossi, & Houdé, ; Johnson, Tubau, & De Neys, ) maintain that a fast, automatic, and autonomous System 1 also could cue a correct logical response from the start of the reasoning process without the evolvement of executive processes (Johnson et al ., ).…”

What does the cognitive reflection test really measure: A process dissociation investigation.

“…Additionally, some people can obtain the correct (i.e. reflective) answer quickly, intuitively, and under cognitive constrains (Bago & De Neys, 2017), and some "intuitions" are correct (Bago & De Neys, 2019b). These models result in several different predictions.…”