The psychology of decision making, reasoning and thinking has been dominated by the dual-process approach for almost half a century even though an increasing number of studies are starting to change some of the basic tenets of the approach. Basically the approach assumes there are two distinct systems which give rise to two distinct sets of processing. Type 1 processes are fast, heuristic-based and require few cognitive resources but are sufficient in most cases. Type 2 processes are analytical, based on deeper processing accompanied by a higher cognitive load and take more time. A recently proposed model of dual-processing by Pennycook, Fugelsang, and Koehler was the theoretical framework for the current study. This model proposes that monitoring and detection of conflict between the results of multiple Type 1 processes connect the two types of processes. Studies conducted under the dual-process framework have recently been accompanied by the inclusion and development of a framework for studying metacognitive processes in reasoning tasks. This framework, called meta-reasoning, has been developed following the tradition and research in the field of meta-memory. Meta-reasoning puts less emphasis on self-regulation which includes a larger number of cognitive and metacognitive processes and focuses on specific processing such as the formation of the feeling of solvability, rightness or judgments of confidence. Studies have shown a connection between the two types of processing and metacognitive judgments which are not necessarily correlated with objective success of reasoning. The main goal of this study was to integrate the two approaches and further investigate the influence of manipulating the level of induced conflict on metacognitive judgments. This is achieved by manipulating the contents but also the modality in which key information of a modified base rate task are presented. Two experiments were conducted to determine the influence of unimodal image and numeric presentations as well as the combined multimodal presentation of key information on response times and metacognitive judgments. Results show that conflict reliably prolongs response times and decreases confidence judgments. Both unimodal presentations induce conflict, while the multimodal presentation has a diminishing impact on top of the unimodal induction of conflict.