William James Center for Research, ISPA-Instituto Universitário, Rua Jardim do Tabaco 41, 1149-041, Lisbon, Portugal.
Research Center for Psychological Science, Faculdade de Psicologia da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2017 Dec;24(6):1980-1986. doi: 10.3758/s13423-017-1234-7.
In judgment and reasoning, intuition and deliberation can agree on the same responses, or they can be in conflict and suggest different responses. Incorrect responses to conflict problems have traditionally been interpreted as a sign of faulty problem-solving-an inability to solve the conflict. However, such errors might emerge earlier, from insufficient attention to the conflict. To test this attentional hypothesis, we manipulated the conflict in reasoning problems and used eye-tracking to measure attention. Across several measures, correct responders paid more attention than incorrect responders to conflict problems, and they discriminated between conflict and no-conflict problems better than incorrect responders. These results are consistent with a two-stage account of reasoning, whereby sound problem solving in the second stage can only lead to accurate responses when sufficient attention is paid in the first stage.
在判断和推理中，直觉和深思熟虑可以对相同的反应达成一致，也可能存在冲突并提出不同的反应。传统上，对冲突问题的错误反应被解释为解决问题有缺陷的标志——无法解决冲突。然而，这种错误可能更早出现，是由于对冲突的关注不够。为了验证这种注意假设，我们在推理问题中操纵了冲突，并使用眼动追踪来测量注意力。通过多种衡量标准，正确的回答者比错误的回答者更关注冲突问题，并且他们比错误的回答者更好地区分了冲突问题和无冲突问题。这些结果与推理的两阶段解释一致，即只有在第一阶段充分注意的情况下，第二阶段正确的问题解决才能导致准确的反应。
Zotero 插件