Autonomous or analytical: Differentiating two modes of reasoning in the two-box friction question

Research into student reasoning using dual-process theories of reasoning as an explanatory framework often employs questions with intuitively appealing incorrect answers. By measuring responses to these questions, researchers can probe intuition (process 1), see how it is used as part of process 2 reasoning, and how process 1 can be overridden. However, it can be difficult to fully understand why a student answers the question incorrectly (even when they have demonstrated the requisite mindware), and it can be challenging to differentiate between a lack of process 2 engagement and a shallow or poor engagement of process 2. In this investigation, we designed a randomized, controlled experiment aimed to differentiate between, to the extent possible, incorrect process 1 only reasoning and shallow process 2 engagement. We tasked undergraduate students with solving one of two versions of a question on which students must apply to Newton's laws in the context of friction drawn from the literature: the two-box friction question. We compare the performance on the classic version of the question against that on a modified version that allows those students who engage in shallow process 2 reasoning to answer differently from those who do not.