• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

从偏见到明智直觉:促进正确的直观推理。

From bias to sound intuiting: Boosting correct intuitive reasoning.

机构信息

Université de Paris, LaPsyDÉ, CNRS, F-75005 Paris, France.

Université Paris 8, DysCo lab, Saint-Denis, France; Institut Universitaire de France, Paris, France.

出版信息

Cognition. 2021 Jun;211:104645. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104645. Epub 2021 Mar 3.

DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104645
PMID:33676145
Abstract

Although human thinking is often biased by erroneous intuitions, recent de-bias studies suggest that people's performance can be boosted by short training interventions, where the correct answers to reasoning problems are explained. However, the nature of this training effect remains unclear. Does training help participants correct erroneous intuitions through deliberation? Or does it help them develop correct intuitions? We addressed this issue in three studies, by focusing on the well-known Bat-and-Ball problem. We used a two-response paradigm in which participants first gave an initial intuitive response, under time pressure and cognitive load, and then gave a final response after deliberation. Studies 1 and 2 showed that not only did training boost performance, it did so as early as the intuitive stage. After training, most participants solved the problems correctly from the outset and no longer needed to correct an initial incorrect answer through deliberation. Study 3 indicated that this sound intuiting sustained over at least two months. The findings confirm that a short training can boost sound reasoning at an intuitive stage. We discuss key theoretical and applied implications.

摘要

尽管人类思维常常受到错误直觉的影响,但最近的去偏倚研究表明,简短的培训干预可以提高人们的表现,即解释推理问题的正确答案。然而,这种训练效果的本质尚不清楚。培训是通过深思熟虑帮助参与者纠正错误的直觉,还是帮助他们形成正确的直觉?我们在三项研究中关注了这个问题,重点研究了著名的蝙蝠和球问题。我们使用了双反应范式,参与者首先在时间压力和认知负荷下给出初始直觉反应,然后在深思熟虑后给出最终反应。研究 1 和研究 2 表明,培训不仅提高了表现,而且早在直觉阶段就提高了表现。经过培训,大多数参与者从一开始就正确地解决了问题,不再需要通过深思熟虑来纠正初始的错误答案。研究 3 表明,这种正确的直觉至少可以持续两个月。研究结果证实,简短的培训可以在直觉阶段提高合理推理能力。我们讨论了关键的理论和应用意义。

相似文献

1
From bias to sound intuiting: Boosting correct intuitive reasoning.从偏见到明智直觉:促进正确的直观推理。
Cognition. 2021 Jun;211:104645. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104645. Epub 2021 Mar 3.
2
The smart intuitor: Cognitive capacity predicts intuitive rather than deliberate thinking.聪明的直觉者:认知能力预测的是直觉思维而非深思熟虑的思维。
Cognition. 2020 Nov;204:104381. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104381. Epub 2020 Jul 1.
3
Adieu Bias: Debiasing Intuitions Among French Speakers.别了,偏差:消除说法语者的直觉偏差
Psychol Belg. 2024 Apr 18;64(1):42-57. doi: 10.5334/pb.1260. eCollection 2024.
4
Biased but in doubt: conflict and decision confidence.有偏见但心存疑虑:冲突与决策信心。
PLoS One. 2011 Jan 25;6(1):e15954. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015954.
5
Think slow, then fast: Does repeated deliberation boost correct intuitive responding?慢思快答:反复斟酌是否能促进正确的直觉反应?
Mem Cognit. 2021 Jul;49(5):873-883. doi: 10.3758/s13421-021-01140-x. Epub 2021 Feb 11.
6
Second-guess: Testing the specificity of error detection in the bat-and-ball problem.事后猜测:测试击球问题中错误检测的特异性。
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2019 Feb;193:214-228. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.01.008. Epub 2019 Jan 18.
7
Thinking, fast and slow on the autism spectrum.自闭症谱系中的快思考与慢思考。
Autism. 2023 Jul;27(5):1245-1255. doi: 10.1177/13623613221132437. Epub 2022 Nov 3.
8
Intuition rather than deliberation determines selfish and prosocial choices.直觉而非深思熟虑决定了自私和亲社会的选择。
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2021 Jun;150(6):1081-1094. doi: 10.1037/xge0000968. Epub 2020 Oct 29.
9
Evaluating the cognitive reflection test as a measure of intuition/reflection, numeracy, and insight problem solving, and the implications for understanding real-world judgments and beliefs.评估认知反射测验作为直觉/反思、计算能力和洞察问题解决的衡量标准,以及对理解现实世界判断和信念的影响。
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2019 Dec;148(12):2129-2153. doi: 10.1037/xge0000592. Epub 2019 Apr 25.
10
Seeing the conflict: an attentional account of reasoning errors.看到冲突:推理错误的注意解释。
Psychon Bull Rev. 2017 Dec;24(6):1980-1986. doi: 10.3758/s13423-017-1234-7.

引用本文的文献

1
The Role of Disgust Certainty in Intuitive Thought Processing: Electrophysiological Evidence.厌恶确定性在直觉思维加工中的作用:电生理学证据
Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2024 Oct 24;17:3709-3719. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S471624. eCollection 2024.
2
Easy-fix attentional focus manipulation boosts the intuitive and deliberate use of base-rate information.简易的注意力焦点操控增强了对基础概率信息的直觉性和深思熟虑的运用。
Mem Cognit. 2025 Apr;53(3):995-1007. doi: 10.3758/s13421-024-01625-5. Epub 2024 Sep 3.
3
Does the Cognitive Reflection Test Work with Chinese College Students? Evidence from a Time-Limited Study.
认知反思测试对中国大学生有效吗?来自一项限时研究的证据。
Behav Sci (Basel). 2024 Apr 22;14(4):348. doi: 10.3390/bs14040348.
4
Adieu Bias: Debiasing Intuitions Among French Speakers.别了,偏差:消除说法语者的直觉偏差
Psychol Belg. 2024 Apr 18;64(1):42-57. doi: 10.5334/pb.1260. eCollection 2024.
5
How to activate intuitive and reflective thinking in behavior research? A comprehensive examination of experimental techniques.如何在行为研究中激活直觉和反思思维?实验技术的综合考察。
Behav Res Methods. 2023 Oct;55(7):3679-3698. doi: 10.3758/s13428-022-01984-4. Epub 2022 Oct 17.
6
Viruses, Vaccines, and COVID-19: Explaining and Improving Risky Decision-making.病毒、疫苗与新冠疫情:解释并改善风险决策
J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2021 Dec;10(4):491-509. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.08.004. Epub 2021 Dec 13.