Algebraic reasoning and bat-and-ball problem variants: Solving isomorphic algebra first facilitates problem solving later

被引:31
作者
Hoover, Jerome D. [1 ]
Healy, Alice F. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Colorado Boulder, Dept Psychol & Neurosci, Boulder, CO 80309 USA
关键词
Decision-making; Judgment; Reasoning; Math anxiety; Algebraic reasoning; Debiasing; Cognitive Reflection Test; DECISION-MAKING; COGNITIVE REFLECTION; ANXIETY; JUDGMENT;
D O I
10.3758/s13423-017-1241-8
中图分类号
B841 [心理学研究方法];
学科分类号
040201 ;
摘要
The classic bat-and-ball problem is used widely to measure biased and correct reasoning in decision-making. University students overwhelmingly tend to provide the biased answer to this problem. To what extent might reasoners be led to modify their judgement, and, more specifically, is it possible to facilitate problem solution by prompting participants to consider the problem from an algebraic perspective? One hundred ninety-seven participants were recruited to investigate the effect of algebraic cueing as a debiasing strategy on variants of the bat-and-ball problem. Participants who were cued to consider the problem algebraically were significantly more likely to answer correctly relative to control participants. Most of this cueing effect was confined to a condition that required participants to solve isomorphic algebra equations corresponding to the structure of bat-and-ball question types. On a subsequent critical question with differing item and dollar amounts presented without a cue, participants were able to generalize the learned information to significantly reduce overall bias. Math anxiety was also found to be significantly related to bat-and-ball problem accuracy. These results suggest that, under specific conditions, algebraic reasoning is an effective debiasing strategy on bat-and-ball problem variants, and provide the first documented evidence for the influence of math anxiety on Cognitive Reflection Test performance.
引用
收藏
页码:1922 / 1928
页数:7
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]   Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning [J].
Alter, Adam L. ;
Oppenheimer, Daniel M. ;
Epley, Nicholas ;
Eyre, Rebecca N. .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-GENERAL, 2007, 136 (04) :569-576
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2002, BOUNDED RATIONALITY
[3]   Math anxiety: Personal, educational, and cognitive consequences [J].
Ashcraft, MH .
CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2002, 11 (05) :181-185
[4]   Why does the Cognitive Reflection Test (sometimes) predict utilitarian moral judgment (and other things)? [J].
Baron, Jonathan ;
Scott, Sydney ;
Fincher, Katrina ;
Metz, S. Emlen .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED RESEARCH IN MEMORY AND COGNITION, 2015, 4 (03) :265-284
[5]  
Bourocher S, 2009, REV ARCHEOL CENT FR, P235
[6]   Does the cognitive reflection test measure cognitive reflection? A mathematical modeling approach [J].
Campitelli, Guillermo ;
Gerrans, Paul .
MEMORY & COGNITION, 2014, 42 (03) :434-447
[7]   MATHEMATICS ANXIETY AND SCIENCE CAREERS AMONG ABLE COLLEGE-WOMEN [J].
CHIPMAN, SF ;
KRANTZ, DH ;
SILVER, R .
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 1992, 3 (05) :292-295
[8]  
Cokely ET, 2009, JUDGM DECIS MAK, V4, P20
[9]   Bats, balls, and substitution sensitivity: cognitive misers are no happy fools [J].
De Neys, Wim ;
Rossi, Sandrine ;
Houde, Olivier .
PSYCHONOMIC BULLETIN & REVIEW, 2013, 20 (02) :269-273
[10]   Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition [J].
Evans, Jonathan St. B. T. .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2008, 59 :255-278