“You're wrong!”
The impact of accuracy feedback on the bat-and-ball problem
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21282947 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Eva M Janssen (0000-0001-9064-8473, Utrecht University, corresponding author), Matthieu Raoelison (0000-0001-9438-5383, Laboratoire de Psychologie du Développement et de L’Education de l’enfant), Wim De Neys (0000-0003-0917-8852, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 206 |
| Pages | 103042 |
| Publication date | 2020-05-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Acta Psychologica (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0001-6918 • E-ISSN: 1873-6297 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103042 |
| PMID | 32283348 |
| OpenAlex | W3016232729 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 12 |
| References cited | 40 |
The popular bat-and-ball problem is a relatively simple math riddle on which people are easily biased by intuitive or heuristic thinking. In two studies we tested the impact of a simple but somewhat neglected manipulation - the impact of minimal accuracy feedback - on bat-and-ball performance. Participants solved a total of 15 standard and 15 control versions of the bat-and-ball problem in three consecutive blocks. Half of the participants received accuracy feedback in the intermediate block. Results of both studies indicated that the feedback had, on average, no significant effect on bat-and-ball accuracy over and above mere repeated presentation. We did observe a consistent improvement for a small number of individual participants. Explorative analyses indicated that this improved group showed a more pronounced conflict detection effect (i.e., latency increase) at the pretest and took more deliberation time after receiving the negative feedback compared to the unimproved group
Algorithm · Ball (mathematics) · Bat algorithm · Cognitive psychology · Deliberation · Latency (audio) · Mathematical analysis · Politics · Simulation · Computer Science · Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics · Mathematics · Psychology · Social Psychology · Sports Analytics and Performance · Statistics Education and Methodologies
Conflict detection across various probabilistic reasoning tasks
The bat-and-ball problem
From slow to fast logic
Elaborative feedback and instruction improve cognitive reflection but do not transfer to related tasks
Domain-specific experience and dual-process thinking
Looks real, feels fake
Limits of the foreign language effect
N2 component implied a subjective conflict detection thinking strategy
Detecting Fixation Bias in Creative Idea Generation
What does the CRT measure? Poor performance may arise from rational processes
From bias to sound intuiting
The formation and revision of intuitions
Fast logic?
Intuition, reason, and metacognition
Assessing miserly information processing
How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis.
Individual differences in reasoning
What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement
Bias and Conflict
The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks
Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test
Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition
Looking Deathworthy
Identifying characteristics associated with higher education teachers’ Cognitive Reflection Test performance and their attitudes towards teaching critical thinking
Logic and human reasoning
Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making
| Unique citing works | 12 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2,4 |
| Citation span | 2021 - 2026 (6) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 12 |