I am presently exploring how intuitive and deliberative styles of reasoning map onto models of autism and psychosis. I am adhering to a dual process account of reasoning (Evans, 2008), therefore I suspect that certain traits of psychosis will relate to a preference for intuitive reasoning over deliberative reasoning. Conversely, I am expecting the opposite pattern of reasoning to occur in autistic individuals.
My question is how do we experimentally measure dual process accounts of reasoning? So far, I have used Deductive Reasoning tasks, Cognitive Reflective Test (CRT; Fredrick, 2005) and probabilistic based reasoning tasks (These tasks have both an 'intuitive' and 'deliberative' answers).
Any other ideas?
Have you considered what diffusion-modeling of RTs might afford in terms of getting distinct estimates of distinct underlying processes?
E.g.: http://star.psy.ohio-state.edu/coglab/People/gail/pdf/psychrev99.pdf
Perhaps taxing the working memory with a secondary load? deliberate, type 2 reasoning will be more affected by a working memory load.
Hi Both,
Thank you for your comments. These are both insightful ideas. I will look into both of these.
I particularly like the idea of taxing the working memory load.
Cheers guys.
Hi, maybe this book will help you: http://www.amazon.de/Foundations-Tracing-Intuition-Challenges-Methods/dp/184872019X. The title is Foundations for Tracing Intuition. Currently I am also working with the intuitive-deliberative distinction and whether they tap into implicit/explicit motives.
Look at a couple of the most recent books by Keith Stanovich --- they may answer your question.
Holyoak & Morrison's Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (2012) has some chapters that may be useful to you.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science
- Reasoning