Manipulations for activating reflective thinking, although regularly used in the literature, have not previously been systematically compared. There are growing concerns about the effectiveness of these methods as well as increasing demand for them. Here, we study five promising reflection manipulations using an objective performance measure — the Cognitive Reflection Test 2 (CRT-2). In our large-scale preregistered online experiment (N = 1,748), we compared a passive and an active control condition with time delay, memory recall, decision justification, debiasing training, and combination of debiasing training and decision justification. We found no evidence that online versions of the two regularly used reflection conditions — time delay and memory recall — improve cognitive performance. Instead, our study isolated two less familiar methods that can effectively and rapidly activate reflective thinking: (1) a brief debiasing training, designed to avoid common cognitive biases and increase reflection, and (2) simply asking participants to justify their decisions.

In the double object construction (e.g. the man gave the woman some flowers) a preference has been observed for placing definite arguments before indefinite arguments when both appear post-verbally. In Danish it has been reported that examples with the indefinite–definite order are read more slowly than those with the definite–indefinite order in speeded acceptability judgement tasks, and they are less frequent in corpus texts. This short communication presents a memory recall experiment showing that the preference observed in comprehension and written production is also observed in on-line oral production. Participants produce definite–indefinite orders when attempting to recall definite–indefinite orders in 95% of the cases, but when attempting to recall indefinite–definite orders they alter the definiteness of one or both of the arguments and produce indefinite–definite orders only in 6% of the cases.

The involvement of the left temporal lobe in semantics and object naming has been repeatedly demonstrated in the context of language comprehension; however, its role in the mechanisms and time course for the retrieval of an integrated object memory from its constituent features have not been well delineated. In this study, 19 young adults were presented with two features of an object (e.g., “desert” and “humps”) and asked to determine whether these two features were congruent to form a retrieval of a specific object (“camel”) or incongruent and formed no retrieval while event-related potentials (ERP) were recorded. Beginning around 750 ms the ERP retrieval and nonretrieval waveforms over the left anterior fronto-temporal region show significance differences, indicating distinct processes for retrievals and nonretrievals. In addition to providing further data implicating the left frontal-anterior temporal region in object memory/retrieval, the results provide insight into the time course of semantic processing related to object memory retrieval in this region. The likely semantic process at 750 ms in this task would be coactivation of feature representations common to the same object. The consistency of this finding suggests that the process is stable across individuals. The potential clinical applications are discussed. (JINS, 2008, 14, 815–822.)

Schizophrenia spectrum patients (N = 143) and healthy controls (N = 160) were administered the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) and tests of executive functioning to directly investigate the effects of proactive interference (PI) and retroactive interference (RI) on word list recall. It was hypothesized that by virtue of the predicted preferential association between executive functioning and RI (relative to PI), patients would demonstrate increased susceptibility to RI in their ability to recall word lists. Results indicated that patients show increased susceptibility to RI relative to PI. Furthermore, this difference appeared to be related to the frontally-mediated central executive functions that were preferentially associated with RI but not PI susceptibility. (JINS, 2001, 7, 481–490.)