Are human reasoning errors truly irrational? This research examines the implications of individual differences in performance on classic reasoning tasks, questioning the interpretation that deviations from normative models indicate systematic irrationality. It explores four alternative explanations for the gap between normative and descriptive models of decision making. Could there be an alternative answer? In a series of experiments, the researchers analyze individual responses to tasks in the heuristics and biases literature. They find that performance errors are a minor factor, while computational limitations and alternative construals of the task play significant roles. Unexpected patterns of covariance suggest that the wrong norm is sometimes being applied. These findings challenge the prevailing view of human irrationality. By considering individual differences and alternative explanations, the research offers a more nuanced perspective on the complexities of human reasoning and decision-making.
Published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, this paper aligns with the journal's broad focus on psychological and neuroscientific perspectives on behavior. By exploring the cognitive processes underlying reasoning and decision-making, it contributes to the understanding of human cognition and its neural basis, aligning with the journal's scope.