Bronx Baseball Bat & Ball Set

FREE Shipping

Bronx Baseball Bat & Ball Set

Bronx Baseball Bat & Ball Set

RRP: £99
Price: £9.9
£9.9 FREE Shipping

In stock

We accept the following payment methods


Finally, latency responses to both the standard and control versions were collected. Correlations between response time and response confidence were expected, in line with previous work (e.g., Johnson et al., 2016; Kelley & Lindsay, 1993; Thompson, Prowse Turner, & Pennycook, 2011; Thompson et al., 2013). Lichtenstein S, & Fischhoff B (1977). Do those who know more also know more about how much they know? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 159–183. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(77)90001-0 [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar]

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] Response times were log transformed for the analyses although the means and standard deviations reported here are untransformed values (in seconds). Again, a 3 × 2 mixed factorial analysis of variance was conducted. In this case, as mentioned earlier, the analysis was limited to the response times from incorrect reasoners, defined as those who were incorrect on the standard problem (ignoring the correctness of their response on the control problem). There was a main effect of condition such that incorrect reasoners responded faster to the control question than to the standard question (see Table 1), F(1, 224) = 38.833, p< .001, η p 2 = .15. Mata A, & Almeida T (2014). Using metacognitive cues to infer others’ thinking. Judgment and Decision Making, 9, 349–359. [ 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] 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]Koriat A, Lichtenstein S, & Fischhoff B (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 107–118. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.107 [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar] Mata A, Schubert A-L, & Ferreira MB (2014). The role of language comprehension in reasoning: How “good-enough” representations induce biases. Cognition, 133, 457–463. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.07.011 [ PubMed] [ 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, Voss A, & Kollei T (2017). Seeing the conflict: An attentional account of reasoning errors. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 1980–1986. doi: 10.3758/s13423-017-1234-7 [ 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]

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]Arkes HR, Christensen C, Lai C, & Blumer C (1987). Two methods of reducing overconfidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 133–144. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(87)90049-5 [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar] Kelley CM, & Lindsay DS (1993). Remembering mistaken for knowing: Ease of retrieval as a basis for confidence in answers to general knowledge questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 1–24. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1993.1001 [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar] Bago B, & De Neys W (2017). Fast logic? Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory. Cognition, 158, 90–109. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.014 [ 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] System 2 thinking, on the other hand, is slow, rational, reflective, and effortful. It gets into the driver’s seat when you focus and concentrate on a complicated problem.

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] Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, & Buchner A (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146 [ PubMed] [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar] De Neys W, & Glumicic T (2008). Conflict monitoring in dual process theories of thinking. Cognition, 106, 1248–1299. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.002 [ PubMed] [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar]

Giving some thoughts to deliberation.

B. T., & Stanovich KE (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 223–241. doi: 10.1177/1745691612460685 [ PubMed] [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar] The body of work on conflict detection in decision-making provides the theoretical framework for explaining the findings outlined above (e.g., Aczel, Szollosi, & Bago, 2016; De Neys, 2012; Pennycook, Fugelsang, & Koehler, 2012). In this line of theorizing, reasoning errors arise from an inability to inhibit prepotent intuitive responses that, importantly, cannot be explained solely due to miserly cognition because incorrect reasoners demonstrate that they are unsure their reasoning was accurate. Indeed, there is a rich body of research in support of error sensitivity in particular and logical intuitions more generally (e.g., Bago & De Neys, 2017; De Neys, 2012, 2014; De Neys & Bonnefon, 2013; De Neys & Glumicic, 2008; De Neys et al., 2013; Gangemi, Bourgeois-Gironde, & Mancini, 2015; Mata, Schubert, & Ferreira, 2014; but see Singmann, Klauer, & Kellen, 2014, for some caveats regarding this literature). Furthermore, sensitivity to error processing has been demonstrated though converging evidence in latency response investigations ( De Neys & Glumicic, 2008; Frey, Johnson, & De Neys, 2017; Johnson, Tubau, & De Neys, 2016) neuroimaging ( De Neys, Vartanian, & Goel, 2008), and alternative measurements of confidence ( De Neys, Cromheeke, & Osman, 2011). However, sensitivity effects were not obtained by indexing reasoner’s mouse-movements ( Travers, Rolison, & Feeney, 2016) nor their eye-movements ( Mata, Ferreira, Voss, & Kollei, 2017; see the subsequent debate concerning the studies by Mata et al. and Frey et al. discussed by Mata & Ferreira, 2018). On a more general level, unconscious processes have not been found to have much (if any) explanatory power (for a review, see Newell & Shanks, 2014). Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–173). Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5. [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar]

Keren G (1991). Calibration and probability judgments: Conceptual and methodological issues. Acta Psychologica, 77, 217–273. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(91)90036-Y [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar]

Anyway, here are the other 2 questions:

Campitelli G, & Gerrans P (2014). Does the cognitive reflection test measure cognitive reflection? A mathematical modeling approach. Memory & Cognition, 42, 434–447. doi: 10.3758/s13421-013-0367-9 [ PubMed] [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar] Thompson VA, Prowse Turner JA, & Pennycook G (2011). Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63, 107–140. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.06.001 [ 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] Gangemi A, Bourgeois-Gironde S, & Mancini F (2015). Feelings of error in reasoning—in search of a phenomenon. Thinking & Reasoning, 21, 383–396. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2014.980755 [ CrossRef] [ Google Scholar] 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]

  • Fruugo ID: 258392218-563234582
  • EAN: 764486781913
  • Sold by: Fruugo

Delivery & Returns


Address: UK
All products: Visit Fruugo Shop