This page contains all the collected study materials and instructions from authors that we have compiled. We also include any comments from other contributors or follow up instructions that we have learned since the beginning of the project. Click "read more" below or choose the "Wiki" option above for further information. For technical problems, please contact OSF help desk (support@osf.io) For questions or information about the studies contact either either Jon Grahe (graheje@plu.edu) or Mark Brandt (m.j.brandt@tilburguniversity.edu) so that the materials can be made available on this website. **Abstract** Influential work on human thinking suggests that our judgment is often biased because we minimize cognitive 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 characterization of the human reasoner as a happy fool who blindly answers erroneous questions without realizing it. **Materials** The original paper is [here][1] (will require a library subscription). Materials are [here][2] When coding answers, sometimes participants write .10 cents (or .05 cents etc.). These are technically quite incorrect because they are fraction of cents. In consultation with a CRT expert, teams should ode “.10” as incorrect and intuitive and “.05” as correct. Please pre-register the intention to use this coding scheme to minimise analytic flexibility. [1]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-013-0384-5 [2]: https://osf.io/9kb9e/