Fluency, the Feeling of Rightness, and Analytic Thinking Valerie Thompson Gordon Pennycook Jonathan Evans Jamie Prowse Turner

Metacognitive Reasoning Theory  Dual Process Theories Automatic Type 1 processes produce a default answer that may or may not be further analysed by deliberate Type 2 processes What processes monitor Type 1 outputs?  When is the default accepted or rejected?  Feeling of Rightness (FOR) Accompanies Type 1 output Feeling of certainty about that output  Akin to other metacognitive experiences, such as Feeling of Knowing, Judgement of Learning, etc.

FOR and Type 2 engagement FOR should predict P(Type 2) processing:  Weak FOR → high P(Type 2)  Strong FOR → low P(Type 2) → compelling illusions (Wason, Linda) FOR, like other metacognitive experiences should depend on fluency of retrieval  Fluency: Ease with which answers come to mind  More fluent → Strong FOR  Less fluent → Lower FOR

Evidence for Metacognitive Reasoning Theory (Thompson, Pennycook, & Prowse Turner, under review)  Conditional inference task  if p, then q; p. q?  N = 64, familiar materials, varied belief by validity, logic instructions, yes/no response  Conditional syllogisms  If p, then q; if q, then r; p. r?  N = 48, non-sense middle terms, varied belief by validity, logic instructions, yes/ no response  Base rate task  De Neys & Glumicic (2008): personality descriptions + baserate  N = 128, congruent, incongruent, neutral problems, no normative instructions, estimated probability

First/ intuitive answer FOR Problem Final answer FJC Final answer FJC Experimental Group Free Control Problem Two Response Paradigm Rethinking Time Answer Change

Evidence Summary  FOR predicts Type 2 engagement: Rethinking time  FOR ↑ → ↓ Rethinking time Probability of changing initial answer  FOR ↑ → ↓ Answer change (probability and degree)  FOR predicted by fluency to generate initial answer  time to generate Answer 1 ↓ →↑ FOR  Therefore, if fluency → FOR and FOR → Type 2 processing, then: Ho: Manipulating fluency should affect Type 2 processing  1. Fluency of processing  2. Fluency of production

Processing Fluency and Type 2 Engagement  Alter et al. (2007) manipulated fluency of processing  Experiment 1: CRT (Fredericks, 2005) clear (M = 1.9) vs degraded text (M = 2.5)  Experiment 3: Representativeness and base rates (Tom W) puffed cheeks (r =.43) vs furrowed brow (r =.74) separate group answered trivia; puffed more confident  Experiment 4: Syllogisms clear (M = 43%) vs degraded text (M = 64%) Separate group estimated difficulty without solving; clear less difficult Concluded fluency → Type 2 processing

Processing Fluency and Type 2 Engagement  Alter et al. (2007) manipulated fluency of processing  Experiment 1: CRT (Fredericks, 2005) clear (M = 1.9) vs degraded text (M = 2.5)  Experiment 3: Representativeness and base rates (Tom W) puffed cheeks (r =.43) vs furrowed brow (r =.74) separate group answered trivia; puffed more confident  Experiment 4: Syllogisms clear (M = 43%) vs degraded text (M = 64%) Separate group estimated difficulty without solving; clear less difficult Concluded fluency → Type 2 processing  Mediated by FOR?

Experiment 1 (and 2) with Gordon Pennycook and Jamie Prowse Turner  16 conditionals x 4 inferences = 64 items Two responses  Two groups (N = 48):  Clear text  Difficult text Experiment 2 (N = 64)  increased difficulty, included CRT Pooled data  Measures of Type 2 engagement should be lower for the fluent than non-fluent condition DVFluentNon Fluent t FOR (/7) < 1 RT-1 (sec) < 1 Correct (%) 55 < 1 Rethink (sec) < 1 Change (%) Accept-1 (%) * Accept-2 (%)

Experiment 1 (and 2) with Gordon Pennycook and Jamie Prowse Turner  16 conditionals x 4 inferences = 64 items Two responses  Two groups (N = 48):  Clear text  Difficult text Experiment 2 (N = 64)  increased difficulty, included CRT Pooled data  Measures of Type 2 engagement should be lower for the fluent than non-fluent condition DVFluentNon Fluent t FOR (/7) < 1 RT-1 (sec) < 1 Correct (%) 55 < 1 Rethink (sec) < 1 Change (%) Accept-1 (%) * Accept-2 (%) CRT.78.96< 1

Experiment 1 (and 2) with Gordon Pennycook and Jamie Prowse Turner  16 conditionals x 4 inferences = 64 items Two responses  Two groups (N = 48):  Clear text  Difficult text Experiment 2 (N = 64)  increased difficulty, included CRT Pooled data  Measures of Type 2 engagement should be lower for the fluent than non-fluent condition DVFluentNon Fluent t FOR (/7) < 1 RT-1 (sec) < 1 Correct (%) 55 < 1 Rethink (sec) < 1 Change (%) Accept-1 (%) * Accept-2 (%) CRT < 1

Experiment 1 (and 2) with Gordon Pennycook and Jamie Prowse Turner * * * * t (107) > 10.9, p <.001

Fluency of Responding vs Fluency of Processing  Ho: FOR is determined by the fluency with which initial answer produced Manipulating fluency of processing should affect FOR only if it affects fluency of production E1 and E2: text manipulation had no effect on fluency of production  Experiment 3: Manipulate fluency of production

Experiment 3 with Jonathan Evans  Matching bias in Wason task Full matching paradigm, arbitrary content  e.g., if the letter is not V, then the number is 8 Implicit negations  Cards presented one at a time Do you need to turn this card over? 32 trials (4 rules x 4 cards x 2 repetitions)  Two-response paradigm  24 U. of Saskatchewan students

 Relative to non- matching, matching cards should be: “selected” more often responded to faster (fluency) promote stronger FOR’s engender less T2 processes:  rethinking time  probability of change  number correct? Experiment 3 with Jonathan Evans DVMatchNon- Match t “Select”-1 (%) ** “Select”-2 (%) * RT-1 (sec) ** FOR (/7) ** Rethink (sec) * Change (%) ** Correct (%) 61 < 1

Experiment 3 with Jonathan Evans ** * * t (21) > 4.20, p <.001

Conclusions and Future Directions  FOR predicts Type 2 engagement Rethinking time, probability of changing answers  Fluency of responding affects FOR Manipulations that decrease speed of responding:  decrease FOR’s  increase Type 2 engagement  Fluency of processing per se does not affect FOR’s Hard vs easy to read text did not affect FOR’s or Type 2 judgments But may affect Type 2 processing (Alter et al, 2007)  Differences in participant population, method, number of problems  Next: Fluent and disfluent versions of the CRT Syllogisms: accessibility of conclusion Matching in the truth table task