Literature DB >> 25740762

Is the cognitive reflection test a measure of both reflection and intuition?

Gordon Pennycook1, James Allan Cheyne2, Derek J Koehler2, Jonathan A Fugelsang2.   

Abstract

The Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) is one of the most widely used tools to assess individual differences in intuitive-analytic cognitive styles. The CRT is of broad interest because each of its items reliably cues a highly available and superficially appropriate but incorrect response, conventionally deemed the "intuitive" response. To do well on the CRT, participants must reflect on and question the intuitive responses. The CRT score typically employed is the sum of correct responses, assumed to indicate greater "reflectiveness" (i.e., CRT-Reflective scoring). Some recent researchers have, however, inverted the rationale of the CRT by summing the number of intuitive incorrect responses, creating a putative measure of intuitiveness (i.e., CRT-Intuitive). We address the feasibility and validity of this strategy by considering the problem of the structural dependency of these measures derived from the CRT and by assessing their respective associations with self-report measures of intuitive-analytic cognitive styles: the Faith in Intuition and Need for Cognition scales. Our results indicated that, to the extent that the dependency problem can be addressed, the CRT-Reflective but not the CRT-Intuitive measure predicts intuitive-analytic cognitive styles. These results provide evidence that the CRT is a valid measure of reflective but not of intuitive thinking.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CRT; Cognitive Reflection Test; Dual-process theory; Intuition; Reflection

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 25740762     DOI: 10.3758/s13428-015-0576-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Res Methods        ISSN: 1554-351X


  24 in total

1.  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

2.  Individual differences in relational reasoning.

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

3.  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

4.  Dunning-Kruger effects in reasoning: Theoretical implications of the failure to recognize incompetence.

Authors:  Gordon Pennycook; Robert M Ross; Derek J Koehler; Jonathan A Fugelsang
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-12

5.  Differences in Art Appreciation in Autism: A Measure of Reduced Intuitive Processing.

Authors:  Mark Brosnan; Chris Ashwin
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2022-09-05

6.  Cognitive reflection vs. calculation in decision making.

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

7.  Reasoning on the Autism Spectrum: A Dual Process Theory Account.

Authors:  Mark Brosnan; Marcus Lewton; Chris Ashwin
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2016-06

Review 8.  Atheists and Agnostics Are More Reflective than Religious Believers: Four Empirical Studies and a Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Gordon Pennycook; Robert M Ross; Derek J Koehler; Jonathan A Fugelsang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-07       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Differences in Cognitive-Perceptual Factors Arising From Variations in Self-Professed Paranormal Ability.

Authors:  Kenneth Graham Drinkwater; Neil Dagnall; Andrew Denovan; Christopher Williams
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-06-10

10.  A limitation of the Cognitive Reflection Test: familiarity.

Authors:  Stefan Stieger; Ulf-Dietrich Reips
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2016-09-06       Impact factor: 2.984

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.