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

Dual processing in reasoning: two systems but one reasoner.

Wim De Neys1

  • 1University of Leuven, Belgium. wim.deneys@psy.kuleuven.be

Psychological Science
|May 11, 2006
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

Can we train better medical intuition? Exploring the potential of debiasing interventions.

Presse medicale (Paris, France : 1983)·2026
Same author

Using large language models to estimate belief strength in reasoning.

Behavior research methods·2026
Same author

Intuitive insight: Fast associative processes drive sound creative thinking.

Cognition·2026
Same author

Humans and LLMs rate deliberation as superior to intuition on complex reasoning tasks.

Communications psychology·2025
Same author

Moses illusions, fast and slow.

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition·2025
Same author

Debiasing in motion: Boosting sound intuiting through animated video training.

Acta psychologica·2025
Same journal

Does Overconfidence Really Confer Adaptive Benefits to Children's Learning?

Psychological science·2026
Same journal

How Does the Mind Grow? Cross-Cultural Intuitive Theories of Mental Development.

Psychological science·2026
Same journal

Not All Practice Is Created Equal: Longitudinal Evidence From Over 40,000 Chess Players.

Psychological science·2026
Same journal

Eye Glint as a Novel Perceptual Cue in Human Vision.

Psychological science·2026
Same journal

Multitarget Visual Search Flexibly Switches Between Concurrent and Sequential Search Modes.

Psychological science·2026
Same journal

Motive Alignment Promotes Adolescents' Proenvironmental Behavior: A Field Experiment in Two Cultures.

Psychological science·2026
See all related articles

Human reasoning involves both automatic and logic-based systems. Executive load impairs logic when it conflicts with beliefs, but individual differences in working memory capacity don't change this effect.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive psychology
  • Neuroscience
  • Human reasoning

Background:

  • Human reasoning is often described as a dual-process system, involving an automatic, belief-based component and a more effortful, logic-based component.
  • Individual differences in cognitive abilities, such as working memory capacity, are thought to influence reasoning performance.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the processing demands of belief-based versus logic-based reasoning systems.
  • To examine the role of working memory capacity in mediating reasoning performance under cognitive load.
  • To test the hypothesis that individual differences in working memory capacity reflect qualitative differences in reasoning mechanisms.

Main Methods:

  • Participants with varying working memory capacities performed a reasoning task.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Cognitive load was manipulated using a secondary task to tax executive resources.
  • Reasoning accuracy was assessed under conditions of conflict between belief and logic, and when beliefs aligned with logic.

    • Main Results:

    • Cognitive load significantly impaired reasoning accuracy when logical validity conflicted with conclusion believability.
    • This executive burden did not affect reasoning when beliefs facilitated the correct logical response.
    • Higher working memory capacity correlated with better performance in conflict conditions, but all participants showed similar load effects.

    Conclusions:

    • The findings support the existence of two distinct reasoning systems with differing processing demands.
    • Evidence suggests that individual differences in reasoning may be quantitative rather than qualitative, challenging notions of fundamentally different reasoning machinery across individuals.