Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Adieu Bias: Debiasing Intuitions Among French Speakers Cover

Adieu Bias: Debiasing Intuitions Among French Speakers

Psychologica Belgica
Volume 64 (2024): Issue 1
By: Nina Franiatte,  Esther Boissin,  Alexandra Delmas and  Wim De Neys  
Open Access
|Apr 2024

References

  1. 1Andersson, L., Eriksson, J., Stillesjö, S., Juslin, P., Nyberg, L., & Wirebring, L. K. (2020). Neurocognitive processes underlying heuristic and normative probability judgments. Cognition, 196, 104153. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104153
    Back to article
  2. 2Arnett, J. J. (2008). The Neglected 95%: Why American Psychology Needs to Become Less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602–614. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.602
    Back to article
  3. 3Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2017). Fast logic?: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory. Cognition, 158, 90–109. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.014
    Back to article
  4. 4Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2019). The Smart System 1: evidence for the intuitive nature of correct responding on the bat-and-ball problem. Thinking & Reasoning, 25(3), 257–299. DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2018.1507949
    Back to article
  5. 5Barrett, H. C. (2020). Towards a Cognitive Science of the Human: Cross-Cultural Approaches and Their Urgency. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2(8), 620–638. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.05.007
    Back to article
  6. 6Bender, A., & Beller, S. (2019). The Cultural Fabric of Human Causal Cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(6), 922–940. DOI: 10.1177/1745691619863055
    Back to article
  7. 7Blasi, D. E., Henrich, J., Adamou, E., Kemmerer, D., & Majid, A. (2022). Over-reliance on English hinders cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Science, 26(12), 1153–1170. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2022.09.015
    Back to article
  8. 8Boissin, E., Caparos, S., Borst, G., & De Neys, W. (2023b). Debiasing intuitive thinking is less effective in younger than older adolescents: The role of knowledge instantiation. [Manuscript in preparation].
    Back to article
  9. 9Boissin, E., Caparos, S., & De Neys, W. (2023a). No easy fix for belief bias during syllogistic reasoning? Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 35(4). DOI: 10.1080/20445911.2023.2181734
    Back to article
  10. 10Boissin, E., Caparos, S., Raoelison, M., & De Neys, W. (2021). From bias to sound intuiting: Boosting correct intuitive reasoning. Cognition, 211, 104645. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104645
    Back to article
  11. 11Boissin, E., Caparos, S., Voudouri, A., & De Neys, W. (2022). Debiasing System 1: Training favours logical over stereotypical intuiting. Judgment and Decision Making, 17(4), 646–690. DOI: 10.1017/S1930297500008895
    Back to article
  12. 12Boissin, E., Josserand, M., De Neys, W., & Caparos, S. (2024). Debiasing thinking among non-WEIRD reasoners. Cognition, 243, 105681. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105681
    Back to article
  13. 13Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive psychology, 43(1), 1–22. DOI: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0748
    Back to article
  14. 14Brault Foisy, L.-M., Ahr, E., Masson, S., Borst, G., & Houdé, O. (2015). Blocking our brain: When we need to inhibit repetitive mistakes! Frontiers for Young Minds, 5. DOI: 10.3389/frym.2015.00017
    Back to article
  15. 15Brysbaert, M., & Debeer, D. (2023). How to run linear mixed effects analysis for pairwise comparisons? A tutorial and a proposal for the calculation of standardized effect sizes. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/esnku
    Back to article
  16. 16Claidière, N., Trouche, E., & Mercier, H. (2017). Argumentation and the diffusion of counter-intuitive beliefs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(7), 1052–1066. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000323
    Back to article
  17. 17De Neys, W. (2006). Automatic-heuristic and executive-analytic processing during reasoning: Chronometric and dual-task considerations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(6), 1070–1100. DOI: 10.1080/02724980543000123
    Back to article
  18. 18De Neys, W. (2023). Advancing theorizing about fast-and-slow thinking. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1–68. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X2200142X
    Back to article
  19. 19De Neys, W., Cromheeke, S., & Osman, M. (2011). Biased but in doubt: Conflict and decision confidence. PLoS ONE, 6(1), e15954. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015954
    Back to article
  20. 20De Neys, W., Rossi, S., & Houdé, O. (2013). Bats, balls, and substitution sensitivity: Cognitive misers are no happy fools. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20(2), 269–273. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0384-5
    Back to article
  21. 21Evans, J. S. B. T. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 454–459. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012
    Back to article
  22. 22Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 255–278. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
    Back to article
  23. 23Evans, J. S. B. T. (2010). Intuition and reasoning: A dual-process perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 21(4), 313–326. DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2010.521057
    Back to article
  24. 24Evans, 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. DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2019.1623071
    Back to article
  25. 25Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. DOI: 10.1177/1745691612460685
    Back to article
  26. 26Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5), 429–448. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X0999094X
    Back to article
  27. 27Franiatte, N., Boissin, E., Delmas, A., & De Neys, W. (2024). Boosting debiasing: Impact of repeated training on reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 89, 101845. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101845
    Back to article
  28. 28Franssens, S., & De Neys, W. (2009). The effortless nature of conflict detection during thinking. Thinking and Reasoning, 15(2), 105–128. DOI: 10.1080/13546780802711185
    Back to article
  29. 29Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42. DOI: 10.1257/089533005775196732
    Back to article
  30. 30Freeman, J. B., & Ambady, N. (2010). MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method. Behavior research methods, 42(1), 226–241. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.42.1.226
    Back to article
  31. 31Freeman, J. B., Dale, R., & Farmer, T. A. (2011). Hand in motion reveals mind in motion. Frontiers in psychology, 2, 59. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00059
    Back to article
  32. 32Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
    Back to article
  33. 33Hoover, J. D., & Healy, A. F. (2017). Algebraic reasoning and bat-and-ball problem variants: Solving isomorphic algebra first facilitates problem solving later. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 24(6), 1922–1928. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-017-1241-8
    Back to article
  34. 34Huettig, F., & Ferreira, F. (2023). The Myth of Normal Reading. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(4), 863–870. DOI: 10.1177/17456916221127226
    Back to article
  35. 35Isaac, C., Lee, B., & Carnes, M. (2009). Interventions that affect gender bias in hiring: A systematic review. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 84(10), 1440. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181b6ba00
    Back to article
  36. 36Janssen, E. M., Raoelison, M., & De Neys, W. (2020). “You’re wrong!”: The impact of accuracy feedback on the bat-and-ball problem. Acta psychologica, 206, 103042. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103042
    Back to article
  37. 37Janssen, E. M., Velinga, S. B., De Neys, W., & Van Gog, T. (2021). Recognizing biased reasoning: Conflict detection during decision-making and decision-evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 217, Article 103322. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103322
    Back to article
  38. 38Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
    Back to article
  39. 39Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 267–293). Cambridge University Press.
    Back to article
  40. 40Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological review, 80(4), 237. DOI: 10.1037/h0034747
    Back to article
  41. 41Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v082.i13
    Back to article
  42. 42Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & Landfield, K. (2009). Giving debiasing away: Can psychological research on correcting cognitive errors promote human welfare? Perspectives on psychological science, 4(4), 390–398. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01144.x
    Back to article
  43. 43Milkman, K. L., Chugh, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). How can decision making be improved? Perspectives on psychological science, 4(4), 379–383. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01142.x
    Back to article
  44. 44Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Rettinger, D. A., Shah, P., & Hegarty, M. (2001). How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(4), 621–640. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.621
    Back to article
  45. 45Morewedge, C. K., & Kahneman, D. (2010). Associative processes in intuitive judgment. Trends in cognitive sciences, 14(10), 435–440. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.07.004
    Back to article
  46. 46Morewedge, C. K., Yoon, H., Scopelliti, I., Symborski, C. W., Korris, J. H., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Debiasing Decisions: Improved Decision Making With a Single Training Intervention. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 129–140. DOI: 10.1177/2372732215600886
    Back to article
  47. 47Nisbett, R. E. (1993). Rules for reasoning. Psychology Press. DOI: 10.4324/9780203763230
    Back to article
  48. 48Pennycook, 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. DOI: 10.1037/a0034887
    Back to article
  49. 49Politzer, G., Bosc-Miné, C., & Sander, E. (2017). Preadolescents solve natural syllogisms proficiently. Cognitive Science, 41(S5), 1031–1061. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12365
    Back to article
  50. 50Prado, J., Léone, J., Epinat-Duclos, J., Trouche, E., & Mercier, H. (2020). The neural bases of argumentative reasoning. Brain and Language, 208, Article 104827. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2020.104827
    Back to article
  51. 51Purcell, Z. A., Wastell, C. A., & Sweller, N. (2020). Domain-specific experience and dual-process thinking. Thinking and Reasoning, 27(2), 1–29. DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2020.1793813
    Back to article
  52. 52Raoelison, M., Boissin, E., Borst, G., & De Neys, W. (2021). From slow to fast logic: the development of logical intuitions. Thinking & Reasoning, 27(4), 599–622. DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2021.1885488
    Back to article
  53. 53Raoelison, M., & De Neys, W. (2019). Do we de-bias ourselves? The impact of repeated presentation on the bat-and-ball problem. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(2), 170–178. DOI: 10.1017/S1930297500003405
    Back to article
  54. 54Smith, L., Leung, W. G., Crane, B., Parkinson, B., Toulopoulou, T., & Yiend, J. (2018). Bilingual comparison of Mandarin and English cognitive bias tasks. Behavior Research Methods, 50(1), 302–312. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-017-0871-0
    Back to article
  55. 55Spivey, M. J., Grosjean, M., & Knoblich, G. (2005). Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 10393–10398. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0503903102
    Back to article
  56. 56Šrol, J., & De Neys, W. (2021). Predicting individual differences in conflict detection and bias susceptibility during reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 27(1), 38–68. DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2019.1708793
    Back to article
  57. 57Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–665. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X00003435
    Back to article
  58. 58Thalmayer, A. G., Toscanelli, C., & Arnett, J. J. (2021). The neglected 95% revisited: Is American psychology becoming less American? American Psychologist, 76(1), 116–129. DOI: 10.1037/amp0000622
    Back to article
  59. 59Thompson, V. A., & Johnson, S. C. (2014). Conflict, metacognition, and analytic thinking. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 215–244. DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2013.869763
    Back to article
  60. 60Thompson, V. A., Prowse Turner, J. A., & Pennycook, G. (2011). Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63(3), 107–140. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.06.001
    Back to article
  61. 61Topol, E. J. (2024). Toward the eradication of medical diagnostic errors. Science, 383(6681), eadn9602. DOI: 10.1126/science.adn9602
    Back to article
  62. 62Travers, E., Rolison, J. J., & Feeney, A. (2016). The time course of conflict on the Cognitive Reflection Test. Cognition, 150, 109–118. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.01.015
    Back to article
  63. 63Trémolière, B., Davidoff, J. B., & Caparos, S. (2022). A 21st century cognitive portrait of the Himba, a remote people of Namibia. British Journal of Psychology, 113(2), 508–530. DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12539
    Back to article
  64. 64Trouche, E., Sander, E., & Mercier, H. (2014). Arguments, more than confidence, explain the good performance of reasoning groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(5), 1958–1971. DOI: 10.1037/a0037099
    Back to article
  65. 65Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological review, 90(4), 293–315. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.293
    Back to article
  66. 66Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York. ISBN 978-3-319-24277-4. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org
    Back to article
  67. 67Wickham, H., François, R., Henry, L., & Müller, K. (2020). dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr
    Back to article
  68. 68Wickham, H., Vaughan, D., & Girlich, M. (2024). tidyr: Tidy Messy Data. R package version 1.3.1. https://github.com/tidyverse/tidyr, https://tidyr.tidyverse.org
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.1260 | Journal eISSN: 0033-2879
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Sep 13, 2023
Accepted on: Mar 24, 2024
Published on: Apr 18, 2024
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
Reasoning,
Heuristics and biases,
Debiasing,
Intuition,
French

© 2024 Nina Franiatte, Esther Boissin, Alexandra Delmas, Wim De Neys, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 64 (2024): Issue 1Next article