In this project from Georgia Gwinnett College in Lawrenceville, Georgia we as students Stephanie Molina, Tereza Koplova, Lourdes Ramirez, Yesenia Pelayo, Jonique Murray replicated the study of De Neys et al. (2013) as part of our Research Methods course, which is a requirement for Psychology majors. In this study, we replicated the paper "Bats, balls, and substitution sensitivity: Cognitive misers are no happy fools" (2013) by De Neys et al. The research question from this study was whether or not people are aware of their of erroneous answers when answering the bat-and-ball question. They conducted their study on 248 participants by asking them their own version of the bat-and-ball problem. The standard version included the phrase "more than the ball / banana" where the control did not use the "more than" language, thus preventing any substitution bias. After the participants answered each question they were asked to rate their confidence in their answers. Using ANOVA, the authors reported that participants were more accurate on the control version of the question compared to the standard version. Further, those who provided wrong answers to the standard version of the magazine-and-bannana question showed lower confidence interval than those who answered the control version. For those who answered the questions correctly, they were still less confident for the standard version compared to the control version, although the difference was not nearly as large. We conducted a replication study based off off De Neys et al. (2013) utilizing the 4 versions of the bat-and-ball and control problems. One hundred twn participants were recruited from Intro to Psychology courses and other introductory level courses. These participants will be given .5 credits for their research participation. In the end, our final sample included only 97 participants after many responses had missing data. Like the original study, we demonstrated that the standard version of the problem demonstrated lower accuracy than the control version of the problem. Similarly, we were also able to replicate the finding that "biased reasoners" demonstrated lower confidence to the standard problem compared to the control problem. However, we were not able to replicate the finding that "correct reasoners" demontrated less confidence on standard problems than control problems. Our data showed no difference between these versions of the problem. The abstract from the original study is listed below: "Abstract Influential work on human thinking suggests that our judgment is often biased because we minimize cognitive making effort and intuitively substitute hard questions by easier ones. A key question is whether or not people realize that they are doing this and notice their mistake. Here, we test this claim with one of the most publicized examples of the substitution bias, the bat-and-ball problem. We designed an isomorphic control version in which reasoners experience no intuitive pull to substitute. Results show that people are less confident in their substituted, erroneous bat-and-ball answer than in their answer on the control version that does not give rise to the substitution. Contrary to popular belief, this basic finding indicates that biased reasoners are not completely oblivious to the substitution and sense that their answer is questionable. This calls into question the charac terization of the human reasoner as a happy fool who blindly answers erroneous questions without realizing it." (De Neys et al., 2013, p. 269). [1]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-013-0384-5 [2]: https://osf.io/9kb9e/