↓ Skip to main content

Fluency and belief bias in deductive reasoning: new indices for old effects

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Fluency and belief bias in deductive reasoning: new indices for old effects
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00631
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dries Trippas, Simon J. Handley, Michael F. Verde

Abstract

Models based on signal detection theory (SDT) have occupied a prominent role in domains such as perception, categorization, and memory. Recent work by Dube et al. (2010) suggests that the framework may also offer important insights in the domain of deductive reasoning. Belief bias in reasoning has traditionally been examined using indices based on raw endorsement rates-indices that critics have claimed are highly problematic. We discuss a new set of SDT indices fit for the investigation belief bias and apply them to new data examining the effect of perceptual disfluency on belief bias in syllogisms. In contrast to the traditional approach, the SDT indices do not violate important statistical assumptions, resulting in a decreased Type 1 error rate. Based on analyses using these novel indices we demonstrate that perceptual disfluency leads to decreased reasoning accuracy, contrary to predictions. Disfluency also appears to eliminate the typical link found between cognitive ability and the effect of beliefs on accuracy. Finally, replicating previous work, we demonstrate that cognitive ability leads to an increase in reasoning accuracy and a decrease in the response bias component of belief bias.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 50 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 26%
Student > Master 10 19%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 57%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 11 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 November 2014.
All research outputs
#13,335,050
of 22,757,541 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,944
of 29,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,564
of 228,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#219
of 389 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,541 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 228,106 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 389 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.