Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T08:15:08.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The chronometrics of confirmation bias: Evidence for the inhibition of intuitive judgements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2011

Edward J. N. Stupple  and
Linden J. Ball
Edward J. N. Stupple
Affiliation:
Centre for Psychological Research, University of Derby, Derby DE22 1GB, United Kingdom. [email protected]://psychology.derby.ac.uk/staff/Ed_Stupple.html
Linden J. Ball
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YF, United Kingdom. [email protected]://www.psych.lancs.ac.uk/people/LindenBall.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mercier & Sperber (M&S) claim that the phenomenon of belief bias – which they consider to be an archetypal manifestation of a general confirmation bias in human reasoning – provides fundamental support for their argumentative theory and its basis in intuitive judgement. We propose that chronometric evidence necessitates a more nuanced account of belief bias that is not readily captured by argumentative theory.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 89 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ball, L. J. (2010) The dynamics of reasoning: Chronometric analysis and dual-process theories. In: The science of reason: A festschrift for Jonathan St. B. T. Evans, ed. Manktelow, K. I., Over, D. E. & Elqayam, S., pp. 283–307. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Ball, L. J., Philips, P., Wade, C. N. & Quayle, J. D. (2006) Effects of belief and logic on syllogistic reasoning: Eye-movement evidence for selective processing models. Experimental Psychology 53:77–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2000) Thinking and believing. In: Mental models in reasoning, ed. Garcìa-Madruga, J., Carriedo, N. & González-Labra, M. J., pp. 41–56. Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distanzia.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2007) Hypothetical thinking: Dual processes in reasoning and judgment. Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2009) How many dual process theories do we need: One, two or many? In: In two minds: Dual processes and beyond, ed. Evans, J. St. B. T. & Frankish, K., pp. 33–54. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klauer, K. C., Musch, J. & Naumer, B. (2000) On belief bias in syllogistic reasoning. Psychological Review 107(4):852–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nickerson, R. S. (1998) Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomena in many guises. Review of General Psychology 2(2):175–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quayle, J. D. & Ball, L. J. (2000) Working memory, metacognitive uncertainty, and belief bias in syllogistic reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A: Human Experimental Psychology 53:1202–223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (2000) Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23:645–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stupple, E. J. N. & Ball, L. J. (2008) Belief-logic conflict resolution in syllogistic reasoning: Inspection-time evidence for a parallel-process model. Thinking & Reasoning 14:168–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, V. A., Newstead, S. E. & Morley, N. J. (2010) Methodological and theoretical issues in belief-bias: Implications for dual process theories. In: The science of reason: A festschrift for Jonathan St. B. T. Evans, ed. Manktelow, K. I., Over, D. E. & Elqayam, S., pp. 309–37. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, V. A., Striemer, C. L., Reikoff, R., Gunter, R. W. & Campbell, J. I. D. (2003) Syllogistic reasoning time: Disconfirmation disconfirmed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10(1):184–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed