Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Implicit and explicit processes in a hypothesis testing task.

Jonathan St B T Evans1, Simon Venn, Aidan Feeney

  • 1Centre for Thinking and Language, Department of Psychology, University of Plymouth, UK.

British Journal of Psychology (London, England : 1953)
|February 13, 2002
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Counterfactual relief.

Memory & cognition·2025
Same author

The roles of switching and inhibition in adult counterintuitive scientific thinking.

Cognition·2025
Same author

Working across religions, cultures, settings, and development: Protocol for wave 2 data collection with children and parents by the developing belief network.

PloS one·2025
Same author

An experimental investigation of the effects of anticipating regret and relief on intentions and decisions to get the influenza vaccination.

Social science & medicine (1982)·2025
Same author

Debt-related regret and well-being in people resolving problem debts.

BMC psychology·2025
Same author

Testicular self-examination: The role of anticipated relief and anticipated regret.

British journal of health psychology·2024

People are less likely to engage in pseudo-diagnostic reasoning when evidence weakly supports a hypothesis or when instructions focus on choosing between competing hypotheses. This impacts decision-making strategies.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Decision Making
  • Reasoning

Background:

  • Pseudo-diagnosticity (PD) is a cognitive bias where individuals favor evidence that is diagnostic of a focal hypothesis, even if it is not the most informative.
  • Understanding factors influencing PD responding is crucial for improving judgment and decision-making processes.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the influence of evidence support and task instructions on pseudo-diagnostic responding.
  • To explore the role of dual process theories in explaining reasoning biases.

Main Methods:

  • Two experiments were conducted.
  • Experiment 1 manipulated the degree of support provided by initial evidence for a focal hypothesis.
  • Experiment 2 manipulated participant instructions, varying the decision-making context (choosing between hypotheses vs. evaluating a single hypothesis).

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Decreased pseudo-diagnostic responding was observed when evidence offered low support for the focal hypothesis.
  • Instructions to select evidence for deciding between focal and complementary hypotheses led to fewer PD responses compared to instructions focused on evaluating a single hypothesis.

Conclusions:

  • The strength of evidence and the framing of decision-making tasks significantly impact pseudo-diagnostic reasoning.
  • Findings align with dual process theories, suggesting different reasoning modes are engaged based on task demands.