How to open the door to System 2: Debiasing the Bat-and-Ball problem

We investigate the empirical conditions under which participants overcome the intuitive and normatively wrong answers they produce in the bat-and-ball problem.

• Publication year

  2008

• Venue

  Unknown venue

• Publication date

  Unknown publication date

• Fields of study

  Computer Science, Psychology

• Identifiers

  No identifiers available.

• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• No references are available for this paper.

• System 2 and cognitive transparency: deliberation helps to justify sound intuitions during reasoning

  2025influential citation
• Easy-fix attentional focus manipulation boosts the intuitive and deliberate use of base-rate information

  2024cites this paper
• The formation and revision of intuitions.

  2023cites this paper
• No easy fix for belief bias during syllogistic reasoning?

  2023cites this paper
• Examining the role of deliberation in de-bias training

  2023cites this paper
• Metacognitive control in single- vs. dual-process theory

  2022cites this paper
• Debiasing System 1: Training favours logical over stereotypical intuiting

  2022cites this paper
• The bat-and-ball problem: a word-problem debiasing approach

  2021cites this paper
• From bias to sound intuiting: Boosting correct intuitive reasoning.

  2021cites this paper
• Second-guess: Testing the specificity of error detection in the bat-and-ball problem.

  2019cites this paper
• The Smart System 1: evidence for the intuitive nature of correct responding on the bat-and-ball problem

  2019cites this paper
• The Bat-and-Ball Problem: Stronger evidence in support of a conscious error process.

  2019cites this paper
• Individual differences in conflict detection during reasoning

  2018cites this paper
• Conflict Detection and Logical Complexity

  2018cites this paper
• The Flushtration Count Illusion: Attribute substitution tricks our interpretation of a simple visual event sequence

  2018influential citation
• Neurocognitive mechanisms of Type 1 and Type 2 decision making processes

  2018cites this paper
• Algebraic reasoning and bat-and-ball problem variants: Solving isomorphic algebra first facilitates problem solving later

  2017cites this paper
• Slower is not always better: Response-time evidence clarifies the limited role of miserly information processing in the Cognitive Reflection Test

  2017cites this paper
• The Doubting System 1: Evidence for automatic substitution sensitivity.

  2016cites this paper
• Developing expert political judgment: The impact of training and practice on judgmental accuracy in geopolitical forecasting tournaments

  2016cites this paper
• Cognitive reflection vs. calculation in decision making

  2015cites this paper
• Numerals as triggers of System 1 and System 2 in the ‘bat and ball’ problem

  2014cites this paper
• Conflict detection, dual processes, and logical intuitions: Some clarifications

  2014cites this paper
• Numerals as triggers of System 1 and System 2 in the ‘bat and ball’ problem

  2014cites this paper
• Conflict detection, dual processes, and logical intuitions: Some clarifications

  2014cites this paper
• When intuitions are helpful: Prior beliefs can support reasoning in the bat-and-ball problem

  2014cites this paper
• The unbearable burden of executive load on cognitive reflection: A validation of dual process theory

  2014cites this paper
• Bats, balls, and substitution sensitivity: cognitive misers are no happy fools

  2013cites this paper
• Working Memory, Cognitive Miserliness and Logic as Predictors of Performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test

  2013cites this paper
• Development of Substitution Bias Sensitivity: Are Adolescents Happy Fools?

  2013cites this paper