Ferreira Mário B, Mata André, Donkin Christopher, Sherman Steven J, Ihmels Max
Research Center for Psychological Science, Faculdade de Psicologia da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Mem Cognit. 2016 Oct;44(7):1050-63. doi: 10.3758/s13421-016-0618-7.
Previous research with the ratio-bias task found larger response latencies for conflict trials where the heuristic- and analytic-based responses are assumed to be in opposition (e.g., choosing between 1/10 and 9/100 ratios of success) when compared to no-conflict trials where both processes converge on the same response (e.g., choosing between 1/10 and 11/100). This pattern is consistent with parallel dual-process models, which assume that there is effective, rather than lax, monitoring of the output of heuristic processing. It is, however, unclear why conflict resolution sometimes fails. Ratio-biased choices may increase because of a decline in analytical reasoning (leaving heuristic-based responses unopposed) or to a rise in heuristic processing (making it more difficult for analytic processes to override the heuristic preferences). Using the process-dissociation procedure, we found that instructions to respond logically and response speed affected analytic (controlled) processing (C), leaving heuristic processing (H) unchanged, whereas the intuitive preference for large nominators (as assessed by responses to equal ratio trials) affected H but not C. These findings create new challenges to the debate between dual-process and single-process accounts, which are discussed.
先前关于比率偏差任务的研究发现，与无冲突试验（即启发式和分析式加工过程得出相同反应的试验，例如在1/10和11/100之间进行选择）相比，在冲突试验（即基于启发式和分析式的反应被认为是相反的试验，例如在成功概率为1/10和9/100的比率之间进行选择）中反应潜伏期更长。这种模式与平行双加工模型一致，该模型假设对启发式加工的输出进行了有效的而非宽松的监控。然而，尚不清楚为什么冲突解决有时会失败。比率偏差选择可能会增加，这是因为分析推理能力下降（使得基于启发式的反应没有受到反对），或者是因为启发式加工增加（使得分析过程更难推翻启发式偏好）。使用过程分离程序，我们发现按逻辑反应的指令和反应速度会影响分析性（控制性）加工（C），而启发式加工（H）不变，而对大数字分子的直觉偏好（通过对等比率试验的反应来评估）会影响H但不影响C。这些发现给双加工和单加工理论之间的争论带来了新的挑战，本文将对此进行讨论。
