Conflict detection with invalid inferences: All heuristics, no logic.
Under current process models of reasoning, detecting conflict between beliefs and logic is a key step that determines whether people will engage in reflective thinking. Conflict detection has been found across many tasks, but it is less reliably observed with syllogistic reasoning. 'Reverse' detecti...
| Publicado en: | Memory & Cognition Vol. 53; no. 7; pp. 2255 - 2279 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Oct2025
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=189137935&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 189137935 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 0090502X MEG jtl: Memory & Cognition issn: 0090502X maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Oct2025 vid: 53 iid: 7 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 189137935 10.3758/s13421-025-01709-w ppf: 2255 ppct: 24 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 1.6MB tig: atl: Conflict detection with invalid inferences: All heuristics, no logic. aug: au: Kosourikhina, Veronika Handley, Simon J. affil: https://ror.org/01sf06y89 School of Psychological Sciences, Macquarie University, 2109, Sydney, NSW, Australia su: Conflict (Psychology) Problem solving Decision making Confidence Psychology Logic Memory Cognition Research funding Descriptive statistics Data analysis software Theory sug: subj: Conflict (Psychology) Problem solving Decision making Confidence Psychology Logic Memory Cognition Research funding Descriptive statistics Data analysis software Theory keyword: Conditional inference Conflict detection Dual process theory Logical intuition Reasoning Conditional inference Conflict detection Dual process theory Logical intuition Reasoning ab: Under current process models of reasoning, detecting conflict between beliefs and logic is a key step that determines whether people will engage in reflective thinking. Conflict detection has been found across many tasks, but it is less reliably observed with syllogistic reasoning. 'Reverse' detection effects have also been found in some studies, which are not easily explained within the current model of conflict detection and cannot be attributed only to measurement noise. In this study, we test whether 'reverse' detection effects in invalid syllogisms can be attributed to a mismatch between where conflict is thought to occur based on normative expectations and where conflict actually occurs for participants. We present evidence from two experiments (total N = 248) showing that invalid AC and DA syllogisms are intuitively valid to many participants, and that there are generally no differences in reaction time and confidence between valid and invalid items once believability and chosen response are taken into consideration. Further, we show that 'reverse' detection effects on invalid items disappear if we treat them as valid, on the assumption that this reflects where conflict occurs subjectively. These results indicate that conflict in these items likely occurs between two heuristic responses, rather than logic and heuristics; and that subjective, not objective, conflict should be considered when measuring conflict detection. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|