Browsing by Subject "intuitiivinen ajattelu"

The evaluation of arguments has not previously been approached from the perspective of cognitive factors that mirror decision-making in real time. This study examined how the reinforcement of intuitive and analytical thinking affects the identification of argumentation errors and the difficulty of choice manifested by evaluators in conflict situations. The results were partly in line with the assumptions: argumentation errors were identified in the context of analytical thinking more efficiently than in the context of intuitive thinking. In part, the results were contrary to assumptions. The effect of strengthening analytical thinking was smaller than expected and was possibly influenced by subjects' expectations of the experimental situation. The reinforcement of intuitive thinking, in turn, led to a seemingly contradictory result, as the difficulty of decision-making seemed to either increase or decrease depending on the evaluation method. Indeed, the results provided support for the view that the time spent by individuals to respond reflects uncertainty in response, whereas moving the mouse reflects the difficulty of decision in a conflicting situation as well as the difficulty of the tasks. The results suggest that the evaluation of arguments can be rapid and relatively certain, even if it simultaneously includes ambivalent features that increase decisional conflict.