直觉的逻辑性：冲突检测和个体差异的作用机制&#x0002A;

王允宏; 罗俊龙

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240107

PDF(518 KB)

心理科学 ›› 2024, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (1) : 52-60. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240107

基础、实验与工效

直觉的逻辑性：冲突检测和个体差异的作用机制^*

王允宏, 罗俊龙^**

作者信息 +

Intuitive Logic: Conflict Detection and the Mechanism of Individual Differences

Wang Yunhong, Luo Junlong

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

逻辑直觉模型认为个体有逻辑和启发式两类直觉。冲突检测是检验逻辑直觉存在的重要方法。当个体做出逻辑反应时,说明逻辑直觉在发挥作用并能检测到自身和启发式直觉的冲突。近年来,研究者将认知能力作为个体差异的主要测量变量,发现认知能力能够正向预测逻辑直觉的运用。然而,基于逻辑直觉的研究存在理论建构不够丰富等问题。未来应当从明确逻辑直觉操作性定义和改进实验范式出发,进一步提出可供实证研究检验的假设,为逻辑直觉的运用和发展提供更为坚实的理论支持。

Abstract

The logical intuitions model assumes the existence of two different types of intuitive processing. While heuristic intuitions automatically apply knowledge and beliefs, logical intuitions are based on simple logical knowledge and probabilistic rules that can help individuals automatically arrive at answers conforming to logical rules without engaging in analytical processing. Consequently, logical intuitions can help people develop mechanisms for solving reasoning problems quickly and accurately.
The two-response paradigm, instructional paradigm, and logic-liking or logic-brightness paradigm are widely used experimental paradigms. Specifically, the two-response paradigm requires participants to make two successive responses to the same question. In the initial response, participants are asked to respond to the question as quickly as possible based on their intuition. They can then reflect on the question in depth and consider it thoroughly before giving a second response. The instructional paradigm requires participants to respond to a given instruction by setting both a logic-based response and a belief-based response. The Logic-liking or logic-brightness paradigm requires participants to give their liking-rating or brightness-rating for the current conclusion, rather than directly judging the logical validity of the conclusion. Researchers have verified the existence of logical intuition from different perspectives through these paradigms.
The elicitation of conflict detection suggests discrepancies between logical and heuristic intuitions. The emergence of conflict implies an incongruence between the corresponding processing of beliefs and the corresponding processing of logic, indicating that the individual has developed a sensitivity to logic. Most individuals detect a cognitive conflict between the two intuitions whether they produce a logic-based or belief-based response. One possibility for inducing conflict detection is that the two intuitions have different strengths. However, as the strength of logical intuitions decreased, the level of conflict detection appeared to increase significantly for logical reasoners and decrease for heuristic reasoners. This implies that individual differences may exist in logical intuitions.
Cognitive ability is the key variable for measuring individual differences in the study of logical intuition. Individuals with high cognitive ability may be in a better position to detect and resolve cognitive conflicts and thus arrive at logical answers. In contrast, individuals with low cognitive ability may not have the relevant logical knowledge and mindware, or if they do have this knowledge, failure to apply it to the appropriate problem (i.e., it may not be sufficiently practiced forming a high degree of automation) may lead to failure in conflict detection or to a low enough degree to warrant attention.
In general, the article reviews recent research on logical intuitions in terms of conflict detection and individual differences, summarizes the common problems in the literature, and suggests corresponding solutions to address them. First, it is not possible to determine the level of involvement in analytical processing. Second, the relationship between individual differences and reasoning strategies is further clarified through the instructional paradigm. Finally, with respect to the lack of abundant theoretical constructs, research should further clarify the operational definition and indicators of logical intuitions. In addition, more hypotheses based on the logical intuition model should be available for examination in empirical studies and emphasis should be placed on the development and application of logical intuition for individuals with low cognitive ability.

导出引用

王允宏, 罗俊龙. 直觉的逻辑性：冲突检测和个体差异的作用机制^*[J]. 心理科学. 2024, 47(1): 52-60 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240107

Wang Yunhong, Luo Junlong. Intuitive Logic: Conflict Detection and the Mechanism of Individual Differences[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2024, 47(1): 52-60 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240107

参考文献

[1] 艾炎, 胡竹菁. (2018a). 推理判断中偏差反应的加工机制: 冲突探查失败, 还是抑制失败?心理科学, 41(4), 869-875.
[2] 艾炎, 胡竹菁. (2018b). 推理判断中双重加工过程的协作与转换机制. 心理科学进展, 26(10), 1794-1806.
[3] 于婷婷, 殷悦, 王舒, 周淑金, 唐晓晨, 罗俊龙. (2018). 不同意识水平下认知资源对直觉优势效应的调节. 心理学报, 50(6), 583-591.
[4] Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2017a). Fast logic: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory. Cognition, 158, 90-109.
[5] Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2017b). Rise and fall of conflicting intuitions during reasoning. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, London, TX.
[6] Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2019a). The intuitive greater good: Testing the corrective dual process model of moral cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(10), 1782-1801.
[7] Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2019b). The Smart System 1: Evidence for the intuitive nature of correct responding on the bat-and-ball problem. Thinking and Reasoning, 25(3), 257-299.
[8] Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2020). Advancing the specification of dual process models of higher cognition: A critical test of the hybrid model view. Thinking and Reasoning, 26(1), 1-30.
[9] Bago B., Frey D., Vidal J., Houdé O., Borst G., & De Neys W. (2018). Fast and slow thinking: Electrophysiological evidence for early conflict sensitivity. Neuropsychologia, 117, 483-490.
[10] Bao W., Yu T. T., Wang Y. H., & Luo J. L. (2022). The neural pattern of intuitive and analytical processes in the subliminal environment: N2 responses on the embedded Chinese character task. Consciousness and Cognition, 97, 103260.
[11] Betsch, T. (2008). The nature of intuition and its neglect in research on judgment and decision making. In H. Plessner, C. Betsch & T. Betsch (Eds.), Intuition in judgment and decision making (pp. 3-22). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[12] Boissin E., Caparos S., Raoelison M., & De Neys W. (2021). From bias to sound intuiting: Boosting correct intuitive reasoning. Cognition, 211, 104645.
[13] De Chantal P. L., Newman I. R., Thompson V., & Markovits H. (2020). Who resists belief-biased inferences? The role of individual differences in reasoning strategies, working memory, and attentional focus. Memory and Cognition, 48(4), 655-671.
[14] De Neys, W. (2012). Bias and conflict: A case for logical intuitions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(1), 28-38.
[15] De Neys, W. (2014). Conflict detection, dual processes, and logical intuitions: Some clarifications. Thinking and Reasoning, 20(2), 169-187.
[16] De Neys, W. (2015). Heuristic bias and conflict detection during thinking. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 62, 1-32.
[17] De Neys, W. (2017). Bias, conflict, and fast logic: Towards a hybrid dual process future? In W. De Neys (Ed.), Dual process theory 2.0 (pp. 47-65). Routledge.
[18] De Neys, W., & Bonnefon, J. F. (2013). The 'whys' and 'whens' of individual differences in thinking biases. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(4), 172-178.
[19] De Neys, W., & Pennycook, G. (2019). Logic, fast and slow: Advances in dual-process theorizing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(5), 503-509.
[20] Evans, J. S. B. T. (2010). Intuition and reasoning: A dual-process perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 21(4), 313-326.
[21] Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019). Reflections on reflection: The nature and function of type 2 processes in dual-process theories of reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 25(4), 383-415.
[22] Evans J. S. B. T., Ball L. J., & Brooks P. G. (1987). Attentional bias and decision order in a reasoning task. British Journal of Psychology, 78(3), 385-394.
[23] Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013a). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223-241.
[24] Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013b). Theory and metatheory in the study of dual processing: Reply to comments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 263-271.
[25] Frey D., Johnson E. D., & De Neys W. (2018). Individual differences in conflict detection during reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(5), 1188-1208.
[26] Ghasemi O., Handley S., & Howarth S. (2022a). The bright homunculus in our head: Individual differences in intuitive sensitivity to logical validity. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(3), 508-535.
[27] Ghasemi O., Handley S., Howarth S., Newman I. R., & Thompson V. A. (2022b). Logical intuition is not really about logic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(9), 2009-2028.
[28] Gladwin, T. E., & Vink, M. (2018). Alcohol-related attentional bias variability and conflicting automatic associations. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 9(2), Article 2043808718779632.
[29] Handley S. J., Newstead S. E., & Trippas D. (2011). Logic, beliefs, and instruction: A test of the default interventionist account of belief bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(1), 28-43.
[30] Hayes B. K., Stephens R. G., Lee M. D., Dunn J. C., Kaluve A., Choi-Christou J., & Cruz N. (2022). Always look on the bright side of logic? Testing explanations of intuitive sensitivity to logic in perceptual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 48(11), 1598-1617.
[31] Howarth S., Handley S. J., & Polito V. (2022). Uncontrolled logic: Intuitive sensitivity to logical structure in random responding. Thinking and Reasoning, 28(1), 61-96.
[32] Howarth S., Handley S. J., & Walsh C. (2016). The logic-bias effect: The role of effortful processing in the resolution of belief-logic conflict. Memory and Cognition, 44(2), 330-349.
[33] Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
[34] Kuo W. J., Sjöström T., Chen Y. P., Wang Y. H., & Huang C. Y. (2009). Intuition and deliberation: Two systems for strategizing in the brain. Science, 324(5926), 519-522.
[35] Markovits H., Brisson J., & De Chantal, P. L. (2017). Logical reasoning versus information processing in the dual-strategy model of reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(1), 72-80.
[36] Markovits H., De Chantal P. L., Brisson J., Dubé É., Thompson V., & Newman I. (2021). Reasoning strategies predict use of very fast logical reasoning. Memory and Cognition, 49(3), 532-543.
[37] Mevel K., Borst G., Poirel N., Simon G., Orliac F., Etard O., & De Neys W. (2019). Developmental frontal brain activation differences in overcoming heuristic bias. Cortex, 117, 111-121.
[38] Morsanyi, K., & Handley, S. J. (2012). Logic feels so good-I like it! Evidence for intuitive detection of logicality in syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(3), 596-616.
[39] Newman I. R., Gibb M., & Thompson V. A. (2017). Rule-based reasoning is fast and belief-based reasoning can be slow: Challenging current explanations of belief-bias and base-rate neglect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(7), 1154-1170.
[40] Pennycook G., De Neys W., Evans J. S. B. T., Stanovich K. E., & Thompson V. A. (2018). The mythical dual-process typology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(8), 667-668.
[41] Pennycook G., Fugelsang J. A., & Koehler D. J. (2015). What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement. Cognitive Psychology, 80, 34-72.
[42] Pennycook G., Trippas D., Handley S. J., & Thompson V. A. (2014). Base rates: Both neglected and intuitive. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(2), 544-554.
[43] Raoelison M., Boissin E., Borst G., & De Neys W. (2021). From slow to fast logic: The development of logical intuitions. Thinking and Reasoning, 27(4), 599-622.
[44] Raoelison M., Thompson V. A., & De Neys W. (2020). The smart intuitor: Cognitive capacity predicts intuitive rather than deliberate thinking. Cognition, 204, 104381.
[45] Šrol, J., & De Neys, W. (2021). Predicting individual differences in conflict detection and bias susceptibility during reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 27(1), 38-68.
[46] Stanovich, K. E. (2018). Miserliness in human cognition: The interaction of detection, override and mindware. Thinking and Reasoning, 24(4), 423-444.
[47] Teoh Y. Y., Yao Z. Q., Cunningham W. A., & Hutcherson C. A. (2020). Attentional priorities drive effects of time pressure on altruistic choice. Nature Communications, 11(1), 3534.
[48] Thompson, V. A. (2021). Eye-tracking IQ: Cognitive capacity and strategy use on a ratio-bias task. Cognition, 208, 104523.
[49] Thompson, V. A., & Johnson, S. C. (2014). Conflict, metacognition, and analytic thinking. Thinking and Reasoning, 20(2), 215-244.
[50] Thompson, V. A., & Markovits, H. (2021). Reasoning strategy vs cognitive capacity as predictors of individual differences in reasoning performance. Cognition, 217, 104866.
[51] Thompson V. A., Newman I. R., Campbell J. I. D., Kish-Greer C., Quartararo G., & Spock T. (2021). Reasoning = representation + process: Common ground for fuzzy trace and dual process theories. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 10(4), 532-536.
[52] Thompson V. A., Pennycook G., Trippas D., & Evans, J. S. B. T. (2018). Do smart people have better intuitions? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(7), 945-961.
[53] Trippas D., Handley S. J., Verde M. F., & Morsanyi K. (2016). Logic brightens my day: Evidence for implicit sensitivity to logical validity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(9), 1448-1457.
[54] Trippas D., Thompson V. A., & Handley S. J. (2017). When fast logic meets slow belief: Evidence for a parallel-processing model of belief bias. Memory and Cognition, 45(4), 539-552.
[55] Vartanian O., Beatty E. L., Smith I., Blackler K., Lam Q., Forbes S., & De Neys W. (2018). The reflective mind: Examining individual differences in susceptibility to base rate neglect with fMRI. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30(7), 1011-1022.
[56] Vartanian O., Lam T. K., Maceda E., & De Neys W. (2021). Can a fast thinker be a good thinker? The neural correlates of base-rate neglect measured using a two-response paradigm. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 38(6), 365-386.
[57] Williams C. C., Kappen M., Hassall C. D., Wright B., & Krigolson O. E. (2019). Thinking theta and alpha: Mechanisms of intuitive and analytical reasoning. Neuroimage, 189, 574-580.
[58] Yin Y., Yu T. T., Wang S., Zhou S. J., Tang X. C., Stupple E. J. N., & Luo J. L. (2018). Event-related potentials support a dual process account of the Embedded Chinese Character Task. Neuropsychologia, 121, 186-192.
[59] Zhou X. L., Chen C. H., Zhang H. C., Chen C. S., Zhou R. L., & Dong Q. (2007). The operand-order effect in single-digit multiplication: An ERP study of Chinese adults. Neuroscience Letters, 414(1), 41-44.