Dataset Information

The Bat-and-Ball Problem: Stronger evidence in support of a conscious error process.

ABSTRACT: Traditional accounts of reasoning have characterized human error response to be an unconscious process whereby cognitive misers blindly neglect the critical information that would lead to problem solution, thereby substituting an easier problem for the actual problem (e.g., Kahneman & Frederick, 2002). For the bat-and-ball problem, the unconscious substitution hypothesis is challenged on two fronts in the present study: (1) testing for conscious representation of the error-inducing semantic content of the problem (i.e., the "more than" phrase, "The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball."); and (2) comparing experimentally response confidence differences between standard versions of the problem and isomorphic controls (without that phrase) to verify post-decision sensitivity to the errors, following De Neys, Rossi, and Houdé (2013). Crucially, even when interference questions were included between testing and memory response, incorrect reasoners largely had accurate recall and recognition of the problem's error inducing phrase. Incorrect reasoners' intra-individual error sensitivity was replicated and extended via the introduction of a social-metacognitive measurement, which was found to be correlated with intra-individual post-decision confidence and also yielded an error sensitivity effect. Finally, latency responses verify the relationship between time spent reasoning and post-decision confidence. Implications and future directions are discussed.

SUBMITTER: Hoover JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6800670 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Bat-and-Ball Problem: Stronger evidence in support of a conscious error process.

Hoover Jerome D JD Healy Alice F AF

Decision (Washington, D.C.) 20190314 4

Traditional accounts of reasoning have characterized human error response to be an unconscious process whereby cognitive misers blindly neglect the critical information that would lead to problem solution, thereby substituting an easier problem for the actual problem (e.g., Kahneman & Frederick, 2002). For the bat-and-ball problem, the unconscious substitution hypothesis is challenged on two fronts in the present study: (1) testing for conscious representation of the error-inducing semantic cont ...[more]

PMID: 31632998

Similar Datasets

Project description:This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Policymakers and those supporting them often find themselves in situations that spur them on to work out how best to define a problem. These situations may range from being asked an awkward or challenging question in the legislature, through to finding a problem highlighted on the front page of a newspaper. The motivations for policymakers wanting to clarify a problem are diverse. These may range from deciding whether to pay serious attention to a particular problem that others claim is important, through to wondering how to convince others to agree that a problem is important. Debates and struggles over how to define a problem are a critically important part of the policymaking process. The outcome of these debates and struggles will influence whether and, in part, how policymakers take action to address a problem. Efforts at problem clarification that are informed by an appreciation of concurrent developments are more likely to generate actions. These concurrent developments can relate to policy and programme options (e.g. the publication of a report demonstrating the effectiveness of a particular option) or to political events (e.g. the appointment of a new Minister of Health with a personal interest in a particular issue). In this article, we suggest questions that can be used to guide those involved in identifying a problem and characterising its features. These are: 1. What is the problem? 2. How did the problem come to attention and has this process influenced the prospect of it being addressed? 3. What indicators can be used, or collected, to establish the magnitude of the problem and to measure progress in addressing it? 4. What comparisons can be made to establish the magnitude of the problem and to measure progress in addressing it? 5. How can the problem be framed (or described) in a way that will motivate different groups?

Project description:This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Policymakers and those supporting them may find themselves in one or more of the following three situations that will require them to characterise the costs and consequences of options to address a problem. These are: 1. A decision has already been taken and their role is to maximise the benefits of an option, minimise its harms, optimise the impacts achieved for the money spent, and (if there is substantial uncertainty about the likely costs and consequences of the option) to design a monitoring and evaluation plan, 2. A policymaking process is already underway and their role is to assess the options presented to them, or 3. A policymaking process has not yet begun and their role is therefore to identify options, characterise the costs and consequences of these options, and look for windows of opportunity in which to act. In situations like these, research evidence, particularly about benefits, harms, and costs, can help to inform whether an option can be considered viable. In this article, we suggest six questions that can be used to guide those involved in identifying policy and programme options to address a high-priority problem, and to characterise the costs and consequences of these options. These are: 1. Has an appropriate set of options been identified to address a problem? 2. What benefits are important to those who will be affected and which benefits are likely to be achieved with each option? 3. What harms are important to those who will be affected and which harms are likely to arise with each option? 4. What are the local costs of each option and is there local evidence about their cost-effectiveness? 5. What adaptations might be made to any given option and could they alter its benefits, harms and costs? 6. Which stakeholder views and experiences might influence an option's acceptability and its benefits, harms, and costs?

Dataset Information

The Bat-and-Ball Problem: Stronger evidence in support of a conscious error process.

Publications

The Bat-and-Ball Problem: Stronger evidence in support of a conscious error process.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets