De Neys Wim
University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2006 Jun;59(6):1070-100. doi: 10.1080/02724980543000123.
Human reasoning has been shown to overly rely on intuitive, heuristic processing instead of a more demanding analytic inference process. Four experiments tested the central claim of current dual-process theories that analytic operations involve time-consuming executive processing whereas the heuristic system would operate automatically. Participants solved conjunction fallacy problems and indicative and deontic selection tasks. Experiment 1 established that making correct analytic inferences demanded more processing time than did making heuristic inferences. Experiment 2 showed that burdening the executive resources with an attention-demanding secondary task decreased correct, analytic responding and boosted the rate of conjunction fallacies and indicative matching card selections. Results were replicated in Experiments 3 and 4 with a different secondary-task procedure. Involvement of executive resources for the deontic selection task was less clear. Findings validate basic processing assumptions of the dual-process framework and complete the correlational research programme of K. E. Stanovich and R. F. West (2000).
研究表明,人类推理过度依赖直觉、启发式加工,而非更具挑战性的分析推理过程。四项实验检验了当前双加工理论的核心观点,即分析操作涉及耗时的执行加工,而启发式系统会自动运行。参与者解决合取谬误问题以及 indicative 和道义性选择任务。实验1表明,做出正确的分析推理比做出启发式推理需要更多的加工时间。实验2表明,一项需要注意力的次要任务给执行资源造成负担,会减少正确的分析反应,并提高合取谬误率以及 indicative 匹配卡片选择率。实验3和实验4采用不同的次要任务程序重复了这些结果。执行资源对道义性选择任务的参与情况不太明确。研究结果验证了双加工框架的基本加工假设,并完善了K.E. 斯坦诺维奇和R.F. 韦斯特(2000年)的相关研究计划。