Literature DB >> 24132723

Does the cognitive reflection test measure cognitive reflection? A mathematical modeling approach.

Guillermo Campitelli1, Paul Gerrans.   

Abstract

We used a mathematical modeling approach, based on a sample of 2,019 participants, to better understand what the cognitive reflection test (CRT; Frederick In Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25-42, 2005) measures. This test, which is typically completed in less than 10 min, contains three problems and aims to measure the ability or disposition to resist reporting the response that first comes to mind. However, since the test contains three mathematically based problems, it is possible that the test only measures mathematical abilities, and not cognitive reflection. We found that the models that included an inhibition parameter (i.e., the probability of inhibiting an intuitive response), as well as a mathematical parameter (i.e., the probability of using an adequate mathematical procedure), fitted the data better than a model that only included a mathematical parameter. We also found that the inhibition parameter in males is best explained by both rational thinking ability and the disposition toward actively open-minded thinking, whereas in females this parameter was better explained by rational thinking only. With these findings, this study contributes to the understanding of the processes involved in solving the CRT, and will be particularly useful for researchers who are considering using this test in their research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24132723     DOI: 10.3758/s13421-013-0367-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  10 in total

1.  The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks.

Authors:  Maggie E Toplak; Richard F West; Keith E Stanovich
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2011-10

2.  Constructive thinking: a broad coping variable with specific components.

Authors:  S Epstein; P Meier
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1989-08

3.  General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples.

Authors:  I M Lipkus; G Samsa; B K Rimer
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2001 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  The belief-bias effect in the production and evaluation of logical conclusions.

Authors:  H Markovits; G Nantel
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1989-01

5.  Developing a tool for measuring the decision-making competence of older adults.

Authors:  Melissa L Finucane; Christina M Gullion
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2010-06

6.  On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning.

Authors:  J S Evans; J L Barston; P Pollard
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1983-05

7.  The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography.

Authors:  L M Schwartz; S Woloshin; W C Black; H G Welch
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1997-12-01       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 8.  Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition.

Authors:  Jonathan St B T Evans
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 24.137

9.  Individual Differences in Numeracy and Cognitive Reflection, with Implications for Biases and Fallacies in Probability Judgment.

Authors:  Jordana M Liberali; Valerie F Reyna; Sarah Furlan; Lilian M Stein; Seth T Pardo
Journal:  J Behav Decis Mak       Date:  2012-10

10.  Development and Testing of an Abbreviated Numeracy Scale: A Rasch Analysis Approach.

Authors:  Joshua A Weller; Nathan F Dieckmann; Martin Tusler; C K Mertz; William J Burns; Ellen Peters
Journal:  J Behav Decis Mak       Date:  2012-03-15
  10 in total
  23 in total

1.  Algebraic reasoning and bat-and-ball problem variants: Solving isomorphic algebra first facilitates problem solving later.

Authors:  Jerome D Hoover; Alice F Healy
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-12

2.  Brief Report: Intuitive and Reflective Reasoning in Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Authors:  Mark Brosnan; Chris Ashwin; Marcus Lewton
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2017-08

3.  Individual differences in relational reasoning.

Authors:  Maureen E Gray; Keith J Holyoak
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2020-01

4.  Three Strategies for the Critical Use of Statistical Methods in Psychological Research.

Authors:  Guillermo Campitelli; Guillermo Macbeth; Raydonal Ospina; Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos
Journal:  Educ Psychol Meas       Date:  2016-10-06       Impact factor: 2.821

5.  Cognitive reflection and antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections.

Authors:  Dwan B Pineros; Jason N Doctor; Mark W Friedberg; Daniella Meeker; Jeffrey A Linder
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2016-03-21       Impact factor: 2.267

6.  Rule abstraction, model-based choice, and cognitive reflection.

Authors:  Hilary J Don; Micah B Goldwater; A Ross Otto; Evan J Livesey
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-10

7.  Which cognitive individual differences predict good Bayesian reasoning? Concurrent comparisons of underlying abilities.

Authors:  Gary Brase
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-02

8.  The Bat-and-Ball Problem: Stronger evidence in support of a conscious error process.

Authors:  Jerome D Hoover; Alice F Healy
Journal:  Decision (Wash D C )       Date:  2019-03-14

9.  Cognitive reflection vs. calculation in decision making.

Authors:  Aleksandr Sinayev; Ellen Peters
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-05-07

10.  Mathematical anxiety is linked to reduced cognitive reflection: a potential road from discomfort in the mathematics classroom to susceptibility to biases.

Authors:  Kinga Morsanyi; Chiara Busdraghi; Caterina Primi
Journal:  Behav Brain Funct       Date:  2014-09-01       Impact factor: 3.759

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.