No-conflict control accuracy remained at ceiling after training, arguing against guessing and a reversed-heuristic account¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Initial and final accuracy on no-conflict control problems was consistently high in both groups and blocks, ruling out systematic guessing or distrust of all intuitive responses. → Nina Franiatte 2024

Evidence¶

Nina Franiatte 2024¶

Nina Franiatte, Esther Boissin, Alexandra Delmas, Wim De Neys. (2024). Boosting Debiasing: Impact of Repeated Training on Reasoning. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101845

q3 · i? · causal · r2

No-conflict trial analysis in Session 1: final-response accuracy was also high (M = 88.0% control, M = 92.3% training), which the authors state argues against a general guessing confound and against a "reversed heuristic" training account.

"the no -conflict trials analysis revealed that performance was consistently at ceiling in pre- and post-intervention blocks for initial responses (M = 84.7%, SD = 29.3 in the control group; M = 90.9%, SD = 11.6 in the training group)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A single debiasing training session significantly increases both intuitive and deliberate accuracy on classic reasoning tasks compared to control — related
• A second training session two days later further increases reasoning accuracy beyond the first session, though less strongly — related