Chapter 8 - Intuitive and Reflective Beliefs in a Modern World
from Implicit vs Explicit Beliefs
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 November 2022
Summary
Human beings form beliefs about the way the world works according to the information that is available to them, their processing ability, and their existing knowledge. However, in such an information-rich world, they sometimes trust their intuitive beliefs rather than their reflective ones. Intuitive beliefs tend to have a bad press in our modern world, as they are often regarded as suboptimal and even erroneous. In the present chapter, we aim to restore their reputation. First, we provide an overview of the two types of beliefs, in the light of dual-process theories whereby people can engage in either fast, almost automatic thinking processes, or slower, more deliberative ones. We then identify contexts in which intuitive beliefs provide compelling cues for daily human activities and sometimes outperform reflective beliefs. Finally, we discuss how intuitive beliefs can even be beneficial for reasoning and learning.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cognitive Science of BeliefA Multidisciplinary Approach, pp. 172 - 190Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Bago, B. & De Neys, W. (2017) Fast logic? Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory. Cognition, 158, 90–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 & Reasoning, 26(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, A. P. & Hope, C. (2014) Heuristic and analytic processes in reasoning: an event-related potential study of belief bias. Psychophysiology, 51(3), 290–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12169Google Scholar
Barrett, J. L. & Lanman, J. A. (2008) The science of religious beliefs. Religion, 38(2), 109–124.Google Scholar
Beller, S. (2010) Deontic reasoning reviewed: psychological questions, empirical findings, and current theories. Cognitive Processing, 11(2), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-009-0265-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonnefon, J. F. (2011) Le raisonneur et ses modèles: Un changement de paradigme dans la psychologie du raisonnement. Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. J. (1981) Can human irrationality be experimentally demonstrated? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4(03), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00009092Google Scholar
Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1999) Toward an evolutionary taxonomy of treatable conditions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108(3), 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.108.3.453Google Scholar
Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (2004) Knowing thyself: the evolutionary psychology of moral reasoning and moral sentiments. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics, 4, 93–128. https://doi.org/10.5840/ruffinx200447Google Scholar
Cosmides, L., Barrett, H. C., & Tooby, J. (2010) Adaptive specializations, social exchange, and the evolution of human intelligence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(2), 9007–9014. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914623107Google Scholar
De Neys, W. (2006) Dual processing in reasoning: two systems but one reasoner. Psychological Science, 17(5), 428–433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Neys, W. (2012) Bias and conflict: a case for logical intuitions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(1), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611429354Google Scholar
De Neys, W. (2014) Conflict detection, dual processes, and logical intuitions: some clarifications. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 169–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Neys, W. (2017) Bias, conflict, and fast logic: towards a hybrid dual process future? In De Neys, W. (Ed.). Dual process theory 2.0 (pp. 47–65). Routledge.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Neys, W. & Glumicic, T. (2008) Conflict monitoring in dual process theories of thinking. Cognition, 106(3), 1248–1299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Neys, W., Moyens, E., & Vansteenwegen, D. (2010) Feeling we’re biased: autonomic arousal and reasoning conflict. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 10(2), 208–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dominowski, R. L. (1995) Content effects in Wason’s selection task. In Newstead, S. E., & Evans, J. S. B. T. (Eds.). Perspectives on thinking and reasoning: essays in honour of Peter Wason, (pp. 41–65). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. (2002) Logic and human reasoning: an assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychological Bulletin, 128(6), 978–996. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.978CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. S. B. (2007) Hypothetical thinking: dual processes in reasoning and judgement. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. (2008) Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. S. B. (2011) Dual-process theories of reasoning: contemporary issues and developmental applications. Developmental Review, 31(2), 86–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2011.07.007Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. & Curtis-Holmes, J. (2005) Rapid responding increases belief bias: evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 11(4), 382–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. S. B., Handley, S. J., Neilens, H., & Over, D. (2010) The influence of cognitive ability and instructional set on causal conditional inference. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(5), 892–909.Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. B., Newstead, S. E., & Byrne, R. M. (1993) Human reasoning: the psychology of deduction. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2005) Deductive reasoning. In Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 169–184). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiddick, L., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2000) No interpretation without representation: the role of domain-specific representations and inferences in the Wason selection task. Cognition, 77(1), 1–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00085-8Google Scholar
Geary, D. C. (2008) An evolutionarily informed education science. Educational Psychologist, 43(4), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802392133Google Scholar
Geary, D. C. & Berch, D. (2015) Evolutionary approaches to understanding children’s academic achievement. In Scott, R. A. & Kosslyn, S. M. (Eds.). Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 1–10). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0123Google Scholar
Geary, D. C. & Berch, D. (2016) Evolution and children’s cognitive and academic development. In Geary, D. C. & Berch, D. (Eds.). Evolution and children’s cognitive and academic development (pp. 217–249). Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29986-0_9Google Scholar
Geary, D. C. & Bjorklund, D. F. (2000) Evolutionary developmental psychology. Child Development, 71(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00118Google Scholar
Gelin, M., Bonin, P., Méot, A., & Bugaiska, A. (2018) Do animacy effects persist in memory for context? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(4), 965–974. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1307866Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. & Hug, K. (1992) Domain-specific reasoning: social contracts, cheating, and perspective change. Cognition, 43(2), 127–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90060-UGoogle Scholar
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.) (2002) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A. M., Goldberg, A. B., & Zhu, X. (2011) Improving early reading comprehension using embodied CAI. Instructional Science, 39(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9096-7Google Scholar
Griggs, R. A. & Cox, J. R. (1982) The elusive thematic-materials effect in Wason’s selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 73(3), 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1982.tb01823.xGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J. (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgement. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.%20108.4.814Google Scholar
Haigh, M. & Bonnefon, J. F. (2015) Conditional sentences create a blind spot in theory of mind during narrative comprehension. Acta Psychologica, 160, 194–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.05.009Google Scholar
Hanson, R. (1997) Are beliefs like clothes? George Mason University. https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/belieflikeclothes.htmlGoogle Scholar
Haselton, M. G. & Buss, D. M. (2000) Error management theory: a new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.1.81Google Scholar
Haselton, M. G., Buss, D. M., & DeKay, W. T. (1998) A theory of errors in cross-sex mindreading. Paper presented at the Human Behavior and Evolution Society Meeting, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
Kahan, D. M. (2015) The politically motivated reasoning paradigm, part 1: what politically motivated reasoning is and how to measure it. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1–16.Google Scholar
Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Dawson, E. C., & Slovic, P. (2017) Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(1), 54–86.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. (2005) A model of heuristic judgment. In Holyoak, K. J. & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 267–293). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, S. P., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.) (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011) Task complexity as a driver for collaborative learning efficiency: the collective working-memory effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 615–624. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1730Google Scholar
Klauer, K. C. & Singmann, H. (2013) Does logic feel good? Testing for intuitive detection of logicality in syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(4), 1265–1273.Google Scholar
Leding, J. K. (2018) The animacy advantage in memory: manipulations of levels of processing and survival processing. American Journal of Psychology, 131(3), 273–281. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.131.3.0273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lespiau, F. & Tricot, A. (2018) Primary knowledge enhances performance and motivation in reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 56, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.02.007Google Scholar
Lespiau, F. & Tricot, A. (2019) Using primary knowledge: an efficient way to motivate students and promote the learning of formal reasoning. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 915–938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09482-4Google Scholar
Manktelow, K. I. & Over, D. E. (1991) Social roles and utilities in reasoning with deontic conditionals. Cognition, 39(2), 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90039-7Google Scholar
Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2009) Intuitive and reflective inferences. In In two minds: dual processes and beyond. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morsanyi, K. & Handley, S. J. (2008) How smart do you need to be to get it wrong? The role of cognitive capacity in the development of heuristic-based judgment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2007.08.003Google Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026099Google Scholar
Nairne, J. S. (2016) Adaptive memory: fitness-relevant “tunings” help drive learning and remembering. In Geary, C. D. & Berch, B. D. (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on child development and education (pp. 251–269). Springer International.Google Scholar
Nairne, J. S., Pandeirada, J. N. S., & Thompson, S. R. (2008) Adaptive memory: the comparative value of survival processing. Psychological Science, 19(2), 176–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02064.xGoogle Scholar
Nakamura, H. & Kawaguchi, J. (2016) People like logical truth: testing the intuitive detection of logical value in basic propositions. PLOS ONE, 11(12), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169166Google Scholar
Paas, F. & Ayres, P. (2014) Cognitive load theory: a broader view on the role of memory in learning and education. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 191–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9263-5Google Scholar
Paas, F. & Sweller, J. (2012) An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 24(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9179-2Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Ping, R. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2010) Gesturing saves cognitive resources when talking about nonpresent objects. Cognitive Science, 34(4), 602–619. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01102.xGoogle Scholar
Rizeq, J., Flora, D. B., & Toplak, M. E. (2020) An examination of the underlying dimensional structure of three domains of contaminated mindware: paranormal beliefs, conspiracy beliefs, and anti-science attitudes. Thinking & Reasoning, 27(2), 187–211.Google Scholar
Spelke, E. S. & Kinzler, K. D. (2007) Core knowledge. Developmental Science, 10(1), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00569.xGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K.E. (2009) What intelligence tests miss. The psychology of rational thought. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (2000) Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(05), 701–717.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (2003) Evolutionary versus instrumental goals: How evolutionary psychology misconceives human rationality. In Over, D. E. (Ed.). Evolution and the psychology of thinking: the debate (pp. 171–230). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Stupple, E. J. & Ball, L. J. (2008) Belief–logic conflict resolution in syllogistic reasoning: inspection-time evidence for a parallel-process model. Thinking & Reasoning, 14(2), 168–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780701739782Google Scholar
Stupple, E. J. & Waterhouse, E. F. (2009) Negations in syllogistic reasoning: evidence for a heuristic–analytic conflict. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1533–1541. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902785674Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (2004) Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32(1), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021808.72598.4dGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J. (2008) Instructional implications of David C. Geary’s evolutionary educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 43(4), 214–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802392208Google Scholar
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011) Cognitive load theory (vol. 1). Springer.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. & Sweller, S. (2006) Natural information processing systems. Evolutionary Psychology, 4(1), 434–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490600400135Google Scholar
Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (1995) Mapping the evolved functional organization of mind and brain. In Gazzaniga, M. S., Bizzi, E., & Caramazza, A. (Eds.). The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 1185–1197). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Trémolière, B., De Neys, W., & Bonnefon, J. F. (2014) The grim reasoner: analytical reasoning under mortality salience. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(3), 333–351.Google Scholar
Trémolière, B., De Neys, W., & Bonnefon, J. F. (2017) Reasoning and moral judgment: A common experimental toolbox. In The Routledge international handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 575–589). Routledge.Google Scholar
Trémolière, B., Gagnon, M. È., & Blanchette, I. (2016) Cognitive load mediates the effect of emotion on analytical thinking. Experimental Psychology, 63(6), 343–350.Google Scholar
Tricot, A. & Roussel, S. (2016) Quelles connaissances de la langue orale est-il nécessaire d’enseigner? Une contribution évolutionniste. In Grandaty, M., & Lafontaine, L. (Eds.). L’enseignement de l’oral à l’école, Les Dossiers des sciences de l’éducation, no. 36 (pp. 75–94). Presses Universitaires du Midi.Google Scholar
Trippas, D., Handley, S. J., & Verde, M. F. (2013) The SDT model of belief bias: complexity, time, and cognitive ability mediate the effects of believability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(5), 1393–1402.Google ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
Valiña, M. D. & Martín, M. (2016) The influence of semantic and pragmatic factors in Wason’s selection task: state of the art. Psychology, 7, 925–940. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2016.76094Google Scholar
Van Gog, T., Paas, F., Marcus, N., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2009) The mirror neuron system and observational learning: implications for the effectiveness of dynamic visualizations. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9094-3Google Scholar
Wason, P. C. (1966) Reasoning. In Foss, B. (Ed.). New horizons in psychology (pp. 135–151). Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Youssef, A., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2012) Using general problem-solving strategies to generate ideas in order to solve geography problems. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(6), 872–877. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2888Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 1
- Cited by