February 2022, ScientificAmerican.com 71reveals the right answer to be five cents. (It’s true;
think the problem through.)
In a gambling task, people with a tendency to
jump were more often lured into choosing inferior
bets over those in which they had a better chance of
winning. Specifically, jumpers fell into the trap of
focusing on the number of times a winning outcome
could happen rather than the full range of possi-
ble outcomes.
Jumpers also had problems with overconfidence:
on a quiz about U.S. civics, they overestimated the
chance that their answers were right significantly
more than other participants did—even when their
answers were wrong.
The distinctions in decision quality between those
who jumped and those who did not remained even
after we took intelligence—based on a test of verbal
intellect—and personality differences into account.
Our data also suggested the difference was not merely
the result of jumpers rushing through our tasks.
So what is behind jumping? Psychological re -
searchers commonly distinguish between two path-
ways of thought: automatic, known as system 1, which
reflects ideas that come to the mind easily, spontane-
ously and without effort; and controlled, or system 2,
comprising conscious and effortful reasoning that is
analytic, mindful and deliberate.
We used several assessments that teased apart how
automatic our participants’ responses were and how
much they engaged in deliberate analysis. We found
that jumpers and nonjumpers were equally swayed
by automatic (system 1) thoughts. The jumpers, how-
ever, did not engage in controlled (system 2) reason-
ing to the same degree as nonjumpers.
It is system 2 thinking that helps people counter-
balance mental contaminants and other biases intro-
duced by the more knee-jerk system 1. Put another
way, jumpers were more likely to accept the conclu-
sions they made at first blush without deliberative
examination or questioning. A lack of system 2 think-
ing was also more broadly connected to their prob-
lematic beliefs and faulty reasoning.
Happily, there may be some hope for jumpers: Our
work suggests that using training to target their
biases can help people think more deliberatively.
Specifically, we adapted a method called metacogni-
tive training from schizophrenia research and cre-
ated a self-paced online version of the intervention.
In this training, participants are confronted with their
own biases. For example, as part of our approach, we
ask people to tackle puzzles, and after they make mis-
takes related to specific biases, these errors are called
out so the participants can learn about the missteps
and other ways of thinking through the problem
at hand. This intervention helps to chip away at par-
ticipants’ overconfidence.
We plan to continue this work to trace other prob-
lems introduced by jumping. Also, we wonder whether
this cognitive bias offers any potential benefits that
could account for how common it is. In the process,
we aim to give back to schizophrenia research. In
some studies, as many as two thirds of people with
schizophrenia who express delusions also exhibit a
jumping bias when solving simple, abstract probabil-
ity problems, in comparison with up to one fifth of
the general population.
Schizophrenia is a relatively rare condition, and
much about the connection between jumping and
judgment issues is not well understood. Our work
with general populations could potentially fill this
gap in ways that help people with schizophrenia.
In everyday life, the question of whether we should
think things through or instead go with our gut is a
frequent and important one. Recent studies show that
even gathering just a little bit more evidence may
help us avoid a major mistake. Sometimes the most
important decision we make can be to take some
more time before making a choice.A baseball bat
and ball cost
$1.10 together.
The bat costs
$1 more than
the ball.
How much does
the ball cost?
Hint: It is not 10 cents, although
many people jump to that answer.FROM OUR ARCHIVES
The Psychology of Preferences. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky; January 1982.
scientificamerican.com/magazine/sa