Janssen Eva M, Raoelison Matthieu, de Neys Wim
Department of Education, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
Université de Paris, UMR CNRS 8240 LaPsyDÉ, France.
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2020 May;206:103042. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103042. Epub 2020 Apr 10.
The popular bat-and-ball problem is a relatively simple math riddle on which people are easily biased by intuitive or heuristic thinking. In two studies we tested the impact of a simple but somewhat neglected manipulation - the impact of minimal accuracy feedback - on bat-and-ball performance. Participants solved a total of 15 standard and 15 control versions of the bat-and-ball problem in three consecutive blocks. Half of the participants received accuracy feedback in the intermediate block. Results of both studies indicated that the feedback had, on average, no significant effect on bat-and-ball accuracy over and above mere repeated presentation. We did observe a consistent improvement for a small number of individual participants. Explorative analyses indicated that this improved group showed a more pronounced conflict detection effect (i.e., latency increase) at the pretest and took more deliberation time after receiving the negative feedback compared to the unimproved group.
广为人知的球拍和球问题是一道相对简单的数学谜题,人们很容易受到直觉或启发式思维的影响。在两项研究中,我们测试了一种简单但有些被忽视的操作——最低限度的准确性反馈——对球拍和球问题表现的影响。参与者在三个连续的板块中总共解决了15个标准版本和15个对照版本的球拍和球问题。一半的参与者在中间板块收到了准确性反馈。两项研究的结果均表明,平均而言,反馈对球拍和球问题的准确性没有显著影响,其影响不超过单纯的重复呈现。我们确实观察到少数个体参与者有持续的进步。探索性分析表明,与未取得进步的组相比,取得进步的这一组在预测试时表现出更明显的冲突检测效应(即潜伏期增加),并且在收到负面反馈后进行了更多的深思熟虑。