Table 1.

Summary of the Key Results of fMRI Studies of Counterintuitive Reasoning

StudyContrastGroupxyzAccuracyFigure
CIC
Allaire-Duquette et al. (2019) IC > C High science competency adolescents −39 48 91% 66% Figure 1A  
IC > C Low science competency adolescents – – – 80% 43%   
IC > C high > low competence   −30 42 −3     Figure 1B  
  
Allaire-Duquette et al. (2021) IC > C Physics PhD −21 24 −9 93% 79% Figure 1A  
27 51     Figure 1A  
−51 15 42     Figure 1A  
33 −66 −33     Figure 1A  
−84 −24     Figure 1A  
  
Brault Foisy et al. (2015) IC > C Physics undergraduates 30 −51 54 99% 94% Figure 1A  
−84 −6     Figure 1A  
IC > C Humanities undergraduates −63 −18 36 2% 4%   
51 24 27       
−6 33       
IC experts > novices   −27 48     Figure 1B  
  42 24 −9     Figure 1B  
  
Masson et al. (2014) IC > C Physics undergraduates 18 12 60 93% 99% Figure 1A  
21 −48 −6     Figure 1A  
−12 −51 66     Figure 1A  
IC > C Humanities undergraduates – – – 4% 2%   
IC experts > novices   48 −78 15     Figure 1B  
  −6 45 24     Figure 1B  
  −48 27     Figure 1B  
  57 27     Figure 1B  
  
Potvin et al. (2020) IC correct > C correct Chemistry university professors 24 57 96% 71% Figure 1A  
−27 21 −6     Figure 1A  
−27 45 42     Figure 1A  
  
Stavy and Babai (2010) IC correct > C correct University educated adults 40 42 −16 92% 62% Figure 1A  
−46 38 −16     Figure 1A  
−42 52 −14     Figure 1A  
IC correct > IC incorrect University educated adults 40 32 −16       
−26 36 −12       
StudyContrastGroupxyzAccuracyFigure
CIC
Allaire-Duquette et al. (2019) IC > C High science competency adolescents −39 48 91% 66% Figure 1A  
IC > C Low science competency adolescents – – – 80% 43%   
IC > C high > low competence   −30 42 −3     Figure 1B  
  
Allaire-Duquette et al. (2021) IC > C Physics PhD −21 24 −9 93% 79% Figure 1A  
27 51     Figure 1A  
−51 15 42     Figure 1A  
33 −66 −33     Figure 1A  
−84 −24     Figure 1A  
  
Brault Foisy et al. (2015) IC > C Physics undergraduates 30 −51 54 99% 94% Figure 1A  
−84 −6     Figure 1A  
IC > C Humanities undergraduates −63 −18 36 2% 4%   
51 24 27       
−6 33       
IC experts > novices   −27 48     Figure 1B  
  42 24 −9     Figure 1B  
  
Masson et al. (2014) IC > C Physics undergraduates 18 12 60 93% 99% Figure 1A  
21 −48 −6     Figure 1A  
−12 −51 66     Figure 1A  
IC > C Humanities undergraduates – – – 4% 2%   
IC experts > novices   48 −78 15     Figure 1B  
  −6 45 24     Figure 1B  
  −48 27     Figure 1B  
  57 27     Figure 1B  
  
Potvin et al. (2020) IC correct > C correct Chemistry university professors 24 57 96% 71% Figure 1A  
−27 21 −6     Figure 1A  
−27 45 42     Figure 1A  
  
Stavy and Babai (2010) IC correct > C correct University educated adults 40 42 −16 92% 62% Figure 1A  
−46 38 −16     Figure 1A  
−42 52 −14     Figure 1A  
IC correct > IC incorrect University educated adults 40 32 −16       
−26 36 −12       

Incongruent (IC; or counterintuitive) trials are those where the intuitive concept and response are in conflict with the scientific concept or response. Congruent (C; or control) trials are those where the intuitive and scientific responses are in agreement.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal