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] 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] The analysis of variance was conducted on proportions to enable comparison with the findings of De Neys et al. (2013), who used an analysis of variance on percentages to compare standard and control problems. However, because the dependent variable is dichotomous (0 or 1), a mixed effects logistic regression (with subject as the random variable) is more appropriate and yielded comparable results. Specifically, participants were significantly more likely to respond accurately to isomorphic control questions than to standard variants, b = −3.73, odds ratio ( OR) = 41.57, χ 2 = 153.54, p< .001, 95% confidence interval ( CI) [0.01, 0.04]. That is, participants’ odds of answering the isomorphic control questions correctly was about 42 times more likely than answering the standard variants correctly. 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] B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629 [ PubMed] [ CrossRef] [ 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].Lichtenstein S, Fischhoff B, & Phillips LD (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In Kahneman D, Slovic P, & Tversky A (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 306–334). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [ 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]

Giving some thoughts to deliberation.

De Neys W, Vartanian O, & Goel V (2008). Smarter than we think: When our brains detect that we are biased. Psychological Science, 19, 483–489. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02113.x [ PubMed] [ 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] 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] 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]

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]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]