Illusory intuitive inferences: Matching heuristics explain logical intuitions.

Area of Science:

• Cognitive Psychology
• Decision Making
• Reasoning

Background:

• Dual-process theories often assume intuitive logical argument evaluation.
• The conflict effect, where incongruent arguments are judged less accurately, supports this.
• However, a matching heuristic may explain these effects instead of intuitive logic.

Purpose of the Study:

• To test the matching heuristic hypothesis against intuitive logic in argument evaluation.
• To investigate whether a matching heuristic drives apparent intuitive logic effects.
• To differentiate between genuine logical intuition and heuristic-based responses.

Main Methods:

• Four experiments were conducted with 409 participants.
• Argument propositions were manipulated to align, misalign, or provide no cue for a matching heuristic.
• Conflict effects were measured under different heuristic cueing conditions.

Main Results:

• Standard conflict effects occurred when the heuristic aligned with logic.
• Reversed conflict effects emerged when the heuristic opposed logic.
• No conflict effects were observed when the heuristic provided no cue.

Conclusions:

• Apparent intuitive logic effects are primarily driven by a matching heuristic.
• The heuristic cues responses that align with or oppose logical conclusions.
• This challenges the assumption of automatic intuitive logic in dual-process theories.