Yılmaz, OnurcanIsler, OzanYilmaz, Onurcan2023-10-192023-10-19202281554-351X1554-3528https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01984-4https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12469/5521Experiments comparing intuitive and reflective decisions provide insights into the cognitive foundations of human behavior. However, the relative strengths and weaknesses of the frequently used experimental techniques for activating intuition and reflection remain unknown. In a large-scale preregistered online experiment (N = 3667), we compared the effects of eight reflection, six intuition, and two within-subjects manipulations on actual and self-reported measures of cognitive performance. Compared to the overall control, the long debiasing training was the most effective technique for increasing actual reflection scores, and the emotion induction was the most effective technique for increasing actual intuition scores. In contrast, the reason and the intuition recall, the reason induction, and the brief time delay conditions failed to achieve the intended effects. We recommend using the debiasing training, the decision justification, or the monetary incentives technique to activate reflection, and the emotion induction, the cognitive load, or the time pressure technique to activate intuition.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessDual-Process TheoriesCognitive ReflectionAnalytic ThinkingTime-PressureDecision JustificationRegistered ReplicationCooperative BehaviorSocial DesirabilityIncreases BeliefResponse-TimeDual-Process TheoriesCognitive ReflectionIntuitionAnalytic ThinkingReflectionTime-PressureDebiasing trainingDecision JustificationInductionRegistered ReplicationRecallCooperative BehaviorTime limitsSocial DesirabilityJustificationIncreases BeliefCognitive loadResponse-TimeMonetary incentivesArticleWOS:00086934830000410.3758/s13428-022-01984-42-s2.0-85140018572Q1Q136253601