Literature DB >> 28849403

The cognitive reflection test is robust to multiple exposures.

Michal Bialek1, Gordon Pennycook2.   

Abstract

The cognitive reflection test (CRT) is a widely used measure of the propensity to engage in analytic or deliberative reasoning in lieu of gut feelings or intuitions. CRT problems are unique because they reliably cue intuitive but incorrect responses and, therefore, appear simple among those who do poorly. By virtue of being composed of so-called "trick problems" that, in theory, could be discovered as such, it is commonly held that the predictive validity of the CRT is undermined by prior experience with the task. Indeed, recent studies have shown that people who have had previous experience with the CRT score higher on the test. Naturally, however, it is not obvious that this actually undermines the predictive validity of the test. Across six studies with ~ 2,500 participants and 17 variables of interest (e.g., religious belief, bullshit receptivity, smartphone usage, susceptibility to heuristics and biases, and numeracy), we did not find a single case in which the predictive power of the CRT was significantly undermined by repeated exposure. This occurred despite the fact that we replicated the previously reported increase in accuracy among individuals who reported previous experience with the CRT. We speculate that the CRT remains robust after multiple exposures because less reflective (more intuitive) individuals fail to realize that being presented with apparently easy problems more than once confers information about the task's actual difficulty.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CRT; Cognitive reflection test; Dual-process theory; Intuition; Reflection

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 28849403     DOI: 10.3758/s13428-017-0963-x

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


  8 in total

1.  How to activate intuitive and reflective thinking in behavior research? A comprehensive examination of experimental techniques.

Authors:  Ozan Isler; Onurcan Yilmaz
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2022-10-17

2.  Analytic thinking predicts accuracy ratings and willingness to share COVID-19 misinformation in Australia.

Authors:  Matthew S Nurse; Robert M Ross; Ozan Isler; Dirk Van Rooy
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-08-27

3.  Is clinical, musculoskeletal pain associated with poorer logical reasoning?

Authors:  Helena Gunnarsson; Jens Agerström
Journal:  Pain Rep       Date:  2021-05-07

4.  Online panels in social science research: Expanding sampling methods beyond Mechanical Turk.

Authors:  Jesse Chandler; Cheskie Rosenzweig; Aaron J Moss; Jonathan Robinson; Leib Litman
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2019-10

5.  Individual differences in risk perception and misperception of COVID-19 in the context of political ideology.

Authors:  Audrey M Weil; Christopher R Wolfe
Journal:  Appl Cogn Psychol       Date:  2021-11-21

6.  Applying Item Response Theory to Develop a Shortened Version of the Need for Cognition Scale.

Authors:  Francesca Chiesi; Kinga Morsanyi; Maria Anna Donati; Caterina Primi
Journal:  Adv Cogn Psychol       Date:  2018-09-30

7.  Upon Repeated Reflection: Consequences of Frequent Exposure to the Cognitive Reflection Test for Mechanical Turk Participants.

Authors:  Jan K Woike
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-12-06

8.  Biased Estimates of Environmental Impact in the Negative Footprint Illusion: The Nature of Individual Variation.

Authors:  Emma Threadgold; John E Marsh; Mattias Holmgren; Hanna Andersson; Megan Nelson; Linden J Ball
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-01-18
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.