Search

The notorious bat-and-ball problem has long been used to demonstrate that people are easily biased by their intuitions. In this paper we test the robustness of biased responding by examining how it is affected by repeated problem presentation. Participants solved 50 standard and control versions of the bat-and-ball problem. To examine the nature of a potential learning effect we adopted a two-response paradigm in which participants have to give a first hunch and can afterwards take the time to deliberate and change their answer. Results showed that both people’s first hunches and the responses they gave after deliberation predominantly remained biased from start to finish. But in the rare cases in which participants did learn to correct themselves, they immediately managed to apply the solution strategy and gave a correct hunch on the subsequent problems. We discuss critical methodological and theoretical implications.

International audience; The popular bat-and-ball problem is a relatively simple math riddle on which people are easily biased by intuitive or heuristic thinking. In two studies we tested the impact of a simple but somewhat neglected manipulation-the impact of minimal accuracy feedback-on bat-and-ball performance. Participants solved a total of 15 standard and 15 control versions of the bat-and-ball problem in three consecutive blocks. Half of the participants received accuracy feedback in the intermediate block. Results of both studies indicated that the feedback had, on average, no significant effect on bat-and-ball accuracy over and above mere repeated presentation. We did observe a consistent improvement for a small number of individual participants. Explorative analyses indicated that this improved group showed a more pronounced conflict detection effect (i.e., latency increase) at the pretest and took more deliberation time after receiving the negative feedback compared to the unimproved group.