Confirmation bias, as the term is typically used in the psychological literature, connotes the seeking or interpreting of evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs, expectations, or a h...

/pdf/confirmation-bias-a-ubiquitous-phenomenon-in-many-guises-18m0fi8wck.pdf

Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises:

This article reviews a diverse set of proposals for dual processing in higher cognition within largely disconnected literatures in cognitive and social psychology. All these theories have in common the distinction between cognitive processes that are fast, automatic, and unconscious and those that are slow, deliberative, and conscious. A number of authors have recently suggested that there may be two architecturally (and evolutionarily) distinct cognitive systems underlying these dual-process accounts. However, it emerges that (a) there are multiple kinds of implicit processes described by different theorists and (b) not all of the proposed attributes of the two kinds of processing can be sensibly mapped on to two systems as currently conceived. It is suggested that while some dual-process theories are concerned with parallel competing processes involving explicit and implicit knowledge systems, others are concerned with the influence of preconscious processes that contextualize and shape deliberative reasoning and decision-making.

/pdf/dual-processing-accounts-of-reasoning-judgment-and-social-118hw7hde7.pdf

Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition

A review is presented of the book “Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment,” edited by Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, and Daniel Kahneman.

Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment

Distinctions have been proposed between systems of reasoning for centuries. This article distills properties shared by many of these distinctions and characterizes the resulting systems in light of recent findings and theoretical developments. One system is associative because its computations reflect similarity structure and relations of temporal contiguity. The other is "rule based" because it operates on symbolic structures that have logical content and variables and because its computations have the properties that are normally assigned to rules. The systems serve complementary functions and can simultaneously generate different solutions to a reasoning problem. The rule-based system can suppress the associative system but not completely inhibit it. The article reviews evidence in favor of the distinction and its characterization. One of the oldest conundrums in psychology is whether people are best conceived as parallel processors of information who operate along diffuse associative links or as analysts who operate by deliberate and sequential manipulation of internal representations. Are inferences drawn through a network of learned associative pathways or through application of a kind of"psychologic" that manipulates symbolic tokens in a rule-governed way? The debate has raged (again) in cognitive psychology for almost a decade now. It has pitted those who prefer models of mental phenomena to be built out of networks of associative devices that pass activation around in parallel and distributed form (the way brains probably function) against those who prefer models built out of formal languages in which symbols are composed into sentences that are processed sequentially (the way computers function). An obvious solution to the conundrum is to conceive of the

/pdf/the-empirical-case-for-two-systems-of-reasoning-3qiztlk5di.pdf

The empirical case for two systems of reasoning.

Perhaps the simplest and the most basic qualitative law of probability is the conjunction rule: The probability of a conjunction, P (A&B) cannot exceed the probabilities of its constituents, P (A) and P (B), because the extension (or the possibility set) of the conjunction is included in the extension of its constituents. Judgments under uncertainty, however, are often mediated by intuitive heuristics that are not bound by the conjunction rule. A conjunction can be more representative than one of its constituents, and instances of a specific category can be easier to imagine or to retrieve than instances of a more inclusive category. The representativeness and availability heuristics therefore can make a conjunction appear more probable than one of its constituents. This phenomenon is demonstrated in a variety of contexts including estimation of word frequency, personality judgment, medical prognosis, decision under risk, suspicion of criminal acts, and political forecasting. Systematic violations of the conjunction rule are observed in judgments of lay people and of experts in both between-subjects and within-subjects comparisons. Alternative interpretations of the conjunction fallacy are discussed and attempts to combat it are explored.

/pdf/extensional-versus-intuitive-reasoning-the-conjunction-2cmoy4v6op.pdf

Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.

Three experiments are reported that investigate the weighting attached to logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning. Substantial belief biases were observed despite controls for possible conversions of the premises. Equally substantial effects of logic were observed despite controls for two possible response biases. A consistent interaction between belief and logic was also recorded; belief bias was more marked on invalid than on valid syllogisms. In all experiments, verbal protocols were recorded and analyzed. These protocols are interpreted in some cases as providing rationalizations for prejudiced decisions and, in other cases, as reflecting a genuine process of premise to conclusion reasoning. In the latter cases, belief bias was minimal but still present. Similarly, even subjects who focus primarily on the conclusion are influenced to an extent by the logic. Thus a conflict between logic and belief is observed throughout, but at several levels of extent.

/pdf/on-the-conflict-between-logic-and-belief-in-syllogistic-3ucx5uqyme.pdf

On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning.

Dual processes in reasoning

A series of five experiments was performed comparing abstract and thematic materials in Wason's (1966) selection task. The first was designed to test the effect of negated rule components on the facilitated performance usually found with thematic rules. No such facilitation transpired, however, and the succeeding four experiments investigated possible variables which could account for this result. None of the experiments showed any facilitation of performance on thematic rules and the pattern of responding with both abstract and thematic rules was consistent with ‘matching bias’ (Evans, 1972a). The results are discussed with reference to previous, apparently contrary, findings.

Facilitation of reasoning by realism: Effect or non‐effect?

A previous study (Evans, 1972) found that subjects tend to match rather than alter named values when constructing verifying and falsifying cases of conditional rules. It was suggested that this tendency (‘matching bias’) might account for the responses normally observed in Wason's (1968, 1969) ‘selection task’. This suggestion was tested by giving subjects the selection task with conditional rules in which the presence and absence of negative components was systematically varied, to see whether subjects consistently attempted to verify the rules (Wason's theory) or whether they continued to choose the matching values despite the presence of negatives, which would reverse the logical meaning of such selections. Significant matching tendencies were observed on four independent measures, and the overall pattern, with matching bias cancelled out, gave no evidence for a verification bias, indicating instead that the logically correct values were most frequently chosen.

Matching bias in the selection task.

The ability to reason independently from one's own goals or beliefs has long been recognised as a key characteristic of the development of formal operational thought. In this article we present the...

J. St B. T. Evans

Papers

On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning.

Dual processes in reasoning

Facilitation of reasoning by realism: Effect or non‐effect?

Matching bias in the selection task.

: Working memory, inhibitory control and the development of children's reasoning