**General Overview** We are a team of researchers at Macquarie University who is attempting to replicate De Neys et al (2013). <hr /> **Materials and Procedure** The experiment administered online via Qualtrics. 100 participants were recruited from the psychology SONA system at Macquarie University and were presented with the experiment as the first part of a bigger project. In this study, we instructed participants to respond to a standard and a control version of the bat-and-ball problem. Two contents (i.e., pencil-eraser and magazine-banana) were used in the original study to minimize the surface similarity of the problems. As in the original study, for half of the sample, we counterbalanced the content of problems for each version. For example, Half of the sample were presented with the the pencil-eraser content in the standard version and the magazine-banana in the control version. For the other half of the sample, the content of the problems were switched. Moreover, we counterbalanced the presentation order of each problem. <hr /> **Results** Consistent with the original study, there was a significant difference between the control and standard problem in terms of accuracy. Moreover, response ratings of participants who gave the incorrect 10 cents biased responses were significantly lower on standard problems compared to control problems. In contrast, by analyzing the first problem that participants solved, we failed to find a significant difference between confidence ratings for standard and control problems. For a more detailed results and discussions, click [here][4]. Alternatively, you can download the markdown version of the analysis [here][3]. <hr /> **Useful Links** The original paper can be found [here][1]. The original materials are [here][2] <hr /> **Original 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. [1]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-013-0384-5 [2]: https://osf.io/9kb9e/ [3]: https://osf.io/zxcf5/ [4]: https://omidghasemi21.github.io/Results/DeNeysReplication.html