Our Research


We investigate the cognitive processes underlying human thinking, learning, and decision-making. Our team examines phenomena such as learning, memory, perception, attention, insight, language, reasoning, bias, problem-solving, and decision-making. Through experiments, simulations, behavioural measures, and diverse analytical methods, we aim to understand how the mind works and how cognitive performance can be enhanced. Our current work focuses on the intersection of cognitive science and artificial intelligence, exploring how AI can be leveraged to study and support human cognition, as well as understanding and enhancing resilience in high-stress professions.

AI-Assisted Learning and Cognition

AI technologies — large language models and adaptive tutoring systems — offer promising avenues for enhancing learning outcomes and supporting cognitive processes. Our research explores the potential of personalised AI feedback to correct misconceptions, deepen understanding, and effect lasting changes in beliefs and knowledge. We’re investigating AI-driven dialogues’ efficacy in rectifying misconceptions in cognitive psychology and related fields, with implications for educational settings and public comprehension of complex issues. This work not only advances AI-assisted learning but also informs human cognition. Studying human-AI interactions yields insights into the cognitive mechanisms underpinning knowledge acquisition, belief updating, and conceptual change. Central to our inquiry is AI’s unique persuasive power in educational contexts — we’re examining its learning benefits alongside its implications for critical thinking in an increasingly AI-driven world. This dual focus allows us to harness AI’s potential while remaining mindful of its broader impact on cognitive development.

Cognitive Biases and Decision-Making

Our research examines the wide range of cognitive biases that shape human judgment and decision-making across various domains. We study visual biases in forensic science and complex cognitive biases in everyday reasoning, exploring how these mental shortcuts influence our thinking. Our work on fingerprint identification revealed how contextual information can influence even expert decision-making, challenging assumptions about objectivity in forensic analysis. Currently, we’re investigating how different types of expertise and cognitive strategies might help overcome biases in critical areas such as financial forecasting, medical diagnosis, and public health policy-making. By combining insights from cognitive science with AI-driven approaches, we aim to improve human reasoning and problem-solving in real-world scenarios. Our goal is to connect theoretical understanding with practical application, promoting more rational decision-making in high-stakes environments where clear thinking is paramount.

Insight Experiences and Belief Formation

Our team is developing a comprehensive framework to study insight or “Aha!” moments – those sudden realisations that can dramatically shift understanding and shape beliefs. We’re expanding on the Eureka heuristic by examining multiple facets of insight experiences, including their depth, “mystical” qualities, and the challenge of putting them into words. Our research explores how these dimensions relate to an individual’s propensity to experience insights. We’re particularly curious about the role these sudden revelations play in forming and maintaining beliefs, especially those related to conspiracy theories and paranormal phenomena. By measuring various aspects of insight experiences and tracking their influence on belief systems, we aim to uncover the cognitive processes driving belief formation and change. This work not only advances our understanding of how people arrive at new ideas but also offers potential strategies for promoting critical thinking and addressing misinformation. Through our novel methods, we aim to reveal how these “lightbulb moments” shape our worldview and influence our decisions.

Resilience in High-Stakes Professions

Our collaboration with the Queensland Police Service and Queensland Ambulance Service focuses on understanding resilience in forensic investigators and first responders. This multi-phase project explores how these professionals maintain their well-being and performance despite frequent exposure to traumatic events. We’re combining in-depth qualitative interviews, specially designed cognitive tasks, and advanced physiological measures to pinpoint the traits and skills that contribute to resilience. By examining how these professionals process and respond to challenging stimuli, we’re uncovering the cognitive strategies that allow them to thrive in high-stress environments. This research has far-reaching implications, potentially informing recruitment practices, refining training programs, and developing targeted support strategies for professionals in high-stress fields. Our findings could lead to interventions that not only enhance individual well-being but also improve public safety by ensuring that these critical professionals can perform at their best under challenging circumstances.

Through these interconnected research areas, our team is advancing our understanding of human cognition and developing innovative approaches to enhance learning, decision-making, and resilience. By leveraging AI technologies, applying cognitive science principles, and collaborating with real-world professionals, we aim to create practical solutions that can improve educational practices, public understanding of complex issues, and performance in critical fields. Our work bridges theoretical cognitive science with real-world applications, contributing to both scientific knowledge and societal benefit.

Recent Papers

Corbett, B. J., Tangen, J. M., Searston, R. A., & Thompson, M. B. (2024). The effect of fingerprint expertise on visual short-term memory. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 9(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-024-00539-9 [PDF]
French, L. A., Tangen, J. M., & Sewell, D. K. (2024). Modelling the impact of single vs. dual presentation on visual discrimination across resolutions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218241255670 [PDF]
Martire, K. A., Chin, J. M., Davis, C., Edmond, G., Growns, B., Gorski, S., Kemp, R. I., Lee, Z., Verdon, C. M., Jansen, G., Lang, T., Neal, T. M.S., Searston, R. A., Slocum, J., Summersby, S., Tangen, J. M., Thompson, M. B., Towler, A., Watson, D., Werrett, M. V., Younan, M., & Ballantyne, K. N. (2024). Understanding ‘error’ in the forensic sciences: A primer. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 8, 100470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100470. [PDF]
Robson, S. G., Searston, R. A., Thompson, M. B., & Tangen, J. M. (2024). A guide to measuring expert performance in forensic pattern matching. Behavior Research Methods, 56(6), 6223-6247. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02354-y [PDF]
Laukkonen, R. E., Webb, M., Salvi, C., Tangen, J. M., Slagter, H. A., & Schooler, J. W. (2023). Insight and the selection of ideas. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 153, 105363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105363 [PDF]
Robson, S. G., & Tangen, J. M. (2023). The invisible 800-pound gorilla: Expertise can increase inattentional blindness. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 8, 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-023-00486-x [PDF]
Grimmer, H. J., Tangen, J. M., Freydenzon, A., & Laukkonen, R. E. (2023). The illusion of insight: Detailed warnings reduce but do not prevent false “Aha!” moments. Cognition & Emotion. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2023.2187352 [PDF]
Ribeiro, G., McKimmie, B. M., & Tangen, J. M. (2022). Diagnostic information produces better calibrated judgements about forensic comparison evidence than likelihood ratios. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000062. [PDF]
Robson, S. G., Tangen, J. M., & Searston, R. A. (2022). Specific versus varied practice in perceptual expertise training. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 48(12), 1336–1346. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001057. [PDF]
Lee, H. D. H., Tangen, J. M., McKimmie, B. M., & Masser, B. M. (2022). The influence of event order on the narratives jurors construct and tell in cases of rape. Psychology, Crime, & Law. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2109633 [PDF]
Grimmer, H. J., Laukkonen, R. E., Freydenzon, A., von Hippel, W., & Tangen, J. M. (2022). Thinking style and psychosis proneness do not predict false insights. Consciousness and Cognition, 104, 103384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2022.103384 [PDF]
Lee, H. D. H., Masser, B. M., Tangen, J. M., & McKimmie, B. M. (2022). The effects of victim testimony order and judicial education on juror decision-making in trials for rape. Psychology, Crime & Law, 30(6), 509–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2099546 [PDF]
Laukkonen, R. E., Kaveladze, B. T., Protzko, J., Tangen, J. M., & Schooler, J. W. (2022). The ring of truth: Irrelevant insights make worldviews seem true. Scientific Reports, 12(2075). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-05923-3 [PDF]
Grimmer, H. J., Laukkonen, R. E., Tangen, J. M., & von Hippel, W. (2022). Eliciting false insights with semantic priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(29), 954–970. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-02049-x [PDF]
Robson, S. G., Baum, M. A., Beaudry, J. L., Beitner, J., Brohmer, H., Chin, J. M., Jasko, K., Kouros, C. D., Laukkonen, R. E., Moreau, D., Searston, R. A., Slagter, H. A., Steffens, N. K., Tangen, J. M. & Thomas, A. (2021). Promoting Open Science: A Holistic Approach to Changing Behaviour. Collabra: Psychology, 7(1), 30137. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.30137 [PDF]
Lee, H. D. H., McKimmie, B. M., Masser, B. M., & Tangen, J. M. (2021). Guided by the rape schema: The influence of event order on how jurors evaluate the victim’s testimony in cases of rape. Psychology, Crime, & Law. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2021.1984483 [PDF]
Laukkonen, R. E., Ingledew, D., Grimmer, H. J., Schooler, J. W., & Tangen, J. M. (2021). Getting a grip on insight: Real-time and embodied Aha experiences predict correct solutions. Cognition and Emotion, 35(5), 918–935. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2021.1908230 [PDF]
Robson, S. G., Tangen, J. M. & Searston, R. A. (2021). The effect of expertise, target usefulness and image structure on visual search. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 6(16), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00282-5 [PDF]
Ribeiro, G., Tangen, J. M., & McKimmie, B. M. (2020). Does DNA evidence in the form of a likelihood ratio affect perceivers’ sensitivity to the strength of a suspect’s alibi? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27(6), 1325–1332. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01784-x [PDF]
Tangen, J. M., Kent, K. M., & Searston, R. A. (2020). Collective intelligence in fingerprint analysis. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5(23), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00223-8 [PDF]
Laukkonen, R. E., Kaveladze, B. T., Tangen, J. M., & Schooler, J. W. (2020). The dark side of Eureka: Artificially induced Aha moments make facts feel true. Cognition, 196, 104122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104122 [PDF]
Robson, S. G., Searston, R. A., Edmond, G., McCarthy, D. J., & Tangen, J. M. (2020). An expert–novice comparison of feature choice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(5), 984–995. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3676 [PDF]
Searston, R. A., Thompson, M. B., Robson, S. G., Corbett, B. J., Ribeiro, G., Edmond, G., & Tangen, J. M. (2019). Truth and transparency in expertise research. Journal of Expertise, 2(4), 199–209. [PDF]
Searston, R. A., Thompson, M. B., Vokey, J. R., French, L. A., & Tangen, J. M. (2019). How low can you go? Detecting style in extremely low resolution images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(5), 573–584. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000628 [PDF]
Ribeiro, G., Tangen, J. M., & McKimmie, B. M. (2019). Beliefs about error rates and human judgment in forensic science. Forensic Science International, 297(1), 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.034 [PDF]
Laukkonen, R. E. & Tangen, J. M. (2018). How to detect insight moments in problem solving experiments, Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 282. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00282 [PDF]
Vokey, J. R., Jamieson, R. K., Tangen, J. M., Searston, R. A., & Allen, S. W. (2018). A visual familiarity account of evidence for orthographic processing in pigeons (Columbia livia): A reply to Scarf, Corballis, Güntürkün, and Colombo (2017), Animal Cognition, 21(3), 425-431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-018-1166-2 [PDF]
Searston, R. A., & Tangen, J. M. (2017). The emergence of perceptual expertise with fingerprints over time. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 442–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.08.006 [PDF]
Searston, R. A., & Tangen, J. M. (2017). The style of a stranger: Identification expertise generalizes to coarser level categories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(4), 1324-1329. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1211-6 [PDF]
Searston, R. A., & Tangen, J. M. (2017). Expertise with unfamiliar objects is flexible to changes in task but not changes in class. PLoS ONE, 12(6), e0178403. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178403 [PDF]
Searston, R. A., & Tangen, J. M. (2017). Training perceptual experts: Feedback, labels, and contrasts. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 71(1), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000124 [PDF]
Edmond, G., Towler, A., Growns, B, Ribeiro, G., Found, B., White, D., Ballantyne, K., Searston, R. A., Thompson, M. B., Tangen, J. M., Kemp, R. I., & Martire, K. (2017). Thinking forensics: Cognitive science for forensic practitioners. Science & Justice, 57(2), 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.11.005 [PDF]
Laukkonen, R. E., & Tangen, J. M. (2017). Can observing a Necker cube make you more insightful? Consciousness and Cognition, 48, 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.11.011 [PDF]
Edmond, G., Found, B., Martire, K., Ballantyne, K., Hamer, D., Hibbert, B., Ligertwood, A., Porter, G., San Roque, M., Searston, R., Tangen, J. M., Dioso-Villa, R., Ligertwood, A., Hibbert, B., White, D., Ribeiro, G., Porter, G., Towler, A., & Roberts, A. (2016). Model forensic science. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48(5), 496-537. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2015.1128969 [PDF]
Searston, R. A., Tangen, J. M., & Eva, K. W. (2015). Putting bias into context: The role of familiarity in identification. Law and Human Behavior, 40(1), 50-64. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000154 [PDF]
Thompson, M. B. & Tangen, J. M. (2014). The nature of expertise in fingerprint matching: Experts can do a lot with a little. PLoS ONE, 9(12), e114759. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114759 [PDF]
Edmond, G., Martire, K., Found, B., Kemp, R., Hamer, D., Hibbert, B., Ligertwood, A., Porter, G., San Roque, M., Searston, R., Tangen, J., Thompson, M., White, D. (2014). How to cross-examine forensic scientists: A guide for lawyers. Australian Bar Review, 39, 174-197. [PDF]
Edmond, G., Tangen, J. M., Searston, R. A., & Dror, I. E. (2014). Contextual bias and cross-contamination in the forensic sciences: The corrosive implications for investigations, plea bargains, trials and appeals. Law, Probability & Risk, 14(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgu018 [PDF]
Thompson, M. B. & Tangen, J. M. (2014). Generalization in fingerprint matching experiments. Science & Justice, 54(5), 391-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2014.06.008 [PDF]
Thompson, M. B., Tangen, J. M., & Searston, R. A. (2014). Understanding expertise and non-analytic cognition in fingerprint discriminations made by humans. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 737. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00737 [PDF]
Edmond, G., Thompson, M. B., & Tangen, J. M. (2014). A guide to interpreting forensic testimony: Scientific approaches to fingerprint evidence. Law, Probability and Risk, 13(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgt011 [PDF]
Thompson, M. B., Tangen, J. M., & McCarthy, D. J. (2014). Human matching performance of genuine crime scene latent fingerprints. Law and Human Behavior, 38(1), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000051 [PDF]
Thompson, M. B., Tangen, J. M., & McCarthy D. J. (2013). Expertise in fingerprint identification. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 58(6), 1519-1530. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12203 [PDF]
Tangen, J. M. (2013). Identification personified. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 45(3), 315-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2013.782339 [PDF]
Wu, W., Moreno, A. M., Tangen, J. M., & Reinhard, J. (2013). Honeybees can discriminate between Monet and Picasso paintings. Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, 199(1), 45-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-012-0767-5 [PDF]
Tangen, J. M., Thompson, M. B., & McCarthy, D. J. (2011). Identifying fingerprint expertise. Psychological Science, 22(8), 995-997. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611414729 [PDF]
Tangen, J. M., Murphy, S. C., & Thompson, M. B. (2011). Flashed face distortion effect: Grotesque faces from relative spaces. Perception, 40(5), 628-630. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6968 [PDF]
Tangen, J. M., Constable, M. D., Durrant, E., Teeter, C., Beston, B. R., & Kim, J. A. (2011). The role of interest and images in slideware presentations. Computers & Education, 56(3), 865-872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.028 [PDF]
Humphreys, M. S., Tangen, J. M., Cornwell, T. B., Quinn, E. A., & Murray, K. L. (2010). Unintended effects of memory on decision making: A breakdown in access control. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(3), 400-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.06.006 [PDF]