Advanced Search

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorIsler, Ozan
dc.contributor.authorYilmaz, Onurcan
dc.date.accessioned2023-10-19T15:12:44Z
dc.date.available2023-10-19T15:12:44Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.issn1554-351X
dc.identifier.issn1554-3528
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01984-4
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12469/5521
dc.description.abstractExperiments comparing intuitive and reflective decisions provide insights into the cognitive foundations of human behavior. However, the relative strengths and weaknesses of the frequently used experimental techniques for activating intuition and reflection remain unknown. In a large-scale preregistered online experiment (N = 3667), we compared the effects of eight reflection, six intuition, and two within-subjects manipulations on actual and self-reported measures of cognitive performance. Compared to the overall control, the long debiasing training was the most effective technique for increasing actual reflection scores, and the emotion induction was the most effective technique for increasing actual intuition scores. In contrast, the reason and the intuition recall, the reason induction, and the brief time delay conditions failed to achieve the intended effects. We recommend using the debiasing training, the decision justification, or the monetary incentives technique to activate reflection, and the emotion induction, the cognitive load, or the time pressure technique to activate intuition.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipCAUL; Think Forward Initiative; ING Bank; Deloitte; Dell Technologies; Amazon Web Services; IBM; Center for Economic Policy Research-CEPRen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipOpen Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. This research has been supported by the Think Forward Initiative (a partnership between ING Bank, Deloitte, Dell Technologies, Amazon Web Services, IBM, and the Center for Economic Policy Research-CEPR). The views and opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Think Forward Initiative or any of its partners.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.relation.ispartofBehavior Research Methodsen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectDual-Process TheoriesEn_Us
dc.subjectCognitive ReflectionEn_Us
dc.subjectAnalytic ThinkingEn_Us
dc.subjectTime-PressureEn_Us
dc.subjectDecision JustificationEn_Us
dc.subjectRegistered ReplicationEn_Us
dc.subjectCooperative BehaviorEn_Us
dc.subjectSocial DesirabilityEn_Us
dc.subjectIncreases BeliefEn_Us
dc.subjectResponse-TimeEn_Us
dc.subjectIntuitionen_US
dc.subjectReflectionen_US
dc.subjectDebiasing trainingen_US
dc.subjectInductionen_US
dc.subjectRecallen_US
dc.subjectTime limitsen_US
dc.subjectJustificationen_US
dc.subjectCognitive loaden_US
dc.subjectMonetary incentivesen_US
dc.titleHow to activate intuitive and reflective thinking in behavior research? A comprehensive examination of experimental techniquesen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.authoridIsler, Ozan/0000-0002-4638-2230
dc.departmentN/Aen_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000869348300004en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3758/s13428-022-01984-4en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85140018572en_US
dc.institutionauthorN/A
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.authorwosidYilmaz, Onurcan/I-3839-2019
dc.identifier.pmid36253601en_US
dc.khas20231019-WoSen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record