Bronx Baseball Bat & Ball Set

Product Information

Fischhoff B, Slovic P, & Lichtenstein S (1977). Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 552–564. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.3.4.552 [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar] Keren G (1988). On the ability of monitoring non-veridical perceptions and uncertain knowledge: Some calibration studies. Acta Psychologica, 67, 95–119. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(88)90007-8 [ PubMed] [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar] As for the response confidence scores, the opinion judgments are reported here as proportions rather than percentages. There was a positive relationship between standard question confidence and standard question opinion judgments for incorrect reasoners, r(225) = .480, p< .001, such that incorrect reasoners who were less confident in their response were also less likely to think other reasoners could answer the standard question correctly. This strong relationship lends support to the notion that opinion judgments and response confidence scores are reflecting similar cognitive processes. De Neys W, Cromheeke S, & Osman M (2011). Biased but in doubt: Conflict and decision confidence. PloS one, 6( 1), e15954. [ PMC free article] [ PubMed] [ Google Scholar] Johnson ED, Tubau E, & De Neys W (2016). The Doubting System 1: Evidence for automatic substitution sensitivity. Acta Psychologica, 164, 56–64. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.12.008 [ PubMed] [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar]

Shaw JS III (1996). Increases in eyewitness confidence resulting from postevent questioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 126–146. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.2.2.126 [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar] Sinayev A, & Peters E (2015). Cognitive reflection vs. calculation in decision making. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 532. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00532 [ PMC free article] [ PubMed] [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar]Bourgeois-Gironde S, & Vanderhenst J-B (2009). How to open the door to System 2: Debiasing the Bat and Ball problem. In Watanabe S, Bloisdell AP, Huber L, & Young A (Eds.), Rational animals, irrational humans (pp. 235–252). Tokyo: Keio University Press. [ Google Scholar] For recognition, all incorrect reasoners’ responses were included in the analyses because their answers came in the form of a multiple-choice forced response. A mixed effects logistic regression (with subject as the random variable) was again conducted due to the dichotomous dependent variable (with or without “more than”). Once again, incorrect reasoners usually recognized the standard problem, but not the control, as containing “more than” (see Table 1), with this effect of condition significant, b = 3.00, odds ratio ( OR) = 20.07, χ 2 = 50.34, p< .001, 95% confidence interval ( CI) [8.76, 45.94]. For the second and third samples, nine simple math problems were included between the experimental questions and the memory questions to serve as interference to limit recall and recognition based on working memory (see the Supplemental Materials). Neither math problems nor any other activity occurred between the De Neys et al. (2013) experimental and the memory questions for the first sample. Specifically, we started by testing 126 MTurk participants and then examined their data. We did not have a precise stopping rule for the sample size, but we decided from the outset to pause data collection after examining the data from an initial sample of MTurk participants. We noted poor memory performance by these initial participants. On the basis of our observations, we tested two additional samples of participants (one from MTurk and one from UCB), each approximately the same size as the initial sample (128 participants), and gave them the math problems to create interference. For the recall response, a mixed effects logistic regression (with subject as the random variable) was conducted due to the dichotomous dependent variable (with or without “more than”), considering only those participants who wrote down an answer that could be coded as with or without the “more than” phrase (e.g., “don’t know” responses were excluded). Incorrect reasoners usually recalled the standard problem, but not the control, as containing “more than” (see Table 1), with this effect of condition significant, b = 3.02, odds ratio ( OR) = 20.44, χ 2 = 21.69, p< .001, 95% confidence interval ( CI) [5.74, 72.75].

Stanovich KE, & West RF (2002). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? In Gilovich T, Griffin D, & Kahneman D (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 421–440). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511808098.026 [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar] Pennycook G, Fugelsang JA, & Koehler DJ (2012). Are we good at detecting conflict during reasoning? Cognition, 124, 101–106. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.004 [ PubMed] [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar] Frey D, Johnson ED, & De Neys W (2017). Individual differences in conflict detection during reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 1188–1208. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2017.1313283 [ PubMed] [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar]Agnoli F, & Krantz DH (1989). Suppressing natural heuristics by formal instruction: The case of the conjunction fallacy. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 515–550. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(89)90017-0 [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar] Scherer LD, Yates JF, Baker SG, & Valentine KD (2017). The influence of effortful thought and cognitive proficiencies on the conjunction fallacy: Implications for dual-process theories of reasoning and judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 874–887. doi: 10.1177/0146167217700607 [ PubMed] [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar] De Neys W, Rossi S, & Houdé O (2013). Bats, balls, and substitution sensitivity: Cognitive misers are no happy fools. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 269–273. doi: 10.3758/s13423-013-0384-5 [ PubMed] [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar] Thousands of students from MIT, Harvard, and Princeton had been put through the quiz, and you’d think that anyone in these prestigious universities would be able to solve this problem with an unerring ease. Not so fast. It turned out that more than 50% responded with the knee-jerk—incorrect—answer. The two systems that led to the choices.

Keren G (1997). On the calibration of probability judgments: Some critical comments and alternative perspectives. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 269–278. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199709)10:3<269::AID-BDM281>3.0.CO;2-L [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar] Klayman J, Soll JB, González-Vallejo C, & Barlas S (1999). Overconfidence: It depends on how, what, and whom you ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 216–247. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1999.2847 [ PubMed] [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar]

Mata A, & Ferreira MB (2018). Response: Commentary: Seeing the conflict: an attentional account of reasoning errors. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 24. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00024 [ PMC free article] [ PubMed] [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar] De Neys W (2012). Bias and conflict: A case for logical intuitions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 28–38. doi: 10.1177/1745691611429354 [ PubMed] [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar] Travers E, Rolison JJ, & 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 [ PubMed] [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar] Israeli-American psychologist Daniel Kahneman examines what he calls the machinery of the mind — two distinct systems in our brain that dictate how we think and make decisions — in his book, Thinking Fast, and Slow. Aczel B, Szollosi A, & Bago B (2016). Lax monitoring versus logical intuition: The determinants of confidence in conjunction fallacy. Thinking & Reasoning, 22, 99–117. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2015.1062801 [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar]