Sex differences on cognitive reflection
Abstract
The Cognitive Reflection Test or CRT is a popular measure designed to distinguish the intuitive thinking processing from the analytical one. Sex differences in the CRT have been found in multiple studies. In this research, the influence of the mathematical component on sex differences is studied by using two different instruments to measure cognitive reflection: the original CRT and one extended version of the original one, both with a high arithmetic component and, on the other hand, a set of five classic heuristic tasks, called CHT, with a lower numeracy content. The results show that these sex differences disappear when the mathematical nature of the tasks is reduced. Finally, in this work a more elaborate way of scoring the intuitive responses is addressed in relation to the meaning of these differences.
Downloads
References
Aczel, B., Bago, B., Szollosi, A., Foldes, A., & Lukacs, B. (2015). Measuring individual differences in decision biases: Methodological considerations. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1770. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01770
Attali, Y., & Bar-Hillel, M. (2020). The false allure of fast lures. Judgment & Decision Making, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500006938
Beilock, S. L. (2008). Math performance in stressful situations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(5), 339-343.
Bialek, M., & Pennycook, G. (2017). The cognitive reflection test is robust to multiple exposures. Behavior Research Methods, 50(5), 1953–1959. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0963-x
Böckenholt, U. (2012). The cognitive-miser response model: Testing for intuitive and deliberate reasoning. Psychometrika, 77(2), 388-399. 10.1007/s11336-012-9251
Brañas-Garza, P., Kujal, P., & Lenkei, B. (2015). Cognitive reflection test: Whom, how, when. Economic Science Inst.
Campitelli, G., & Gerrans, P. (2014). Does the cognitive reflection test measure cognitive reflection? A mathematical modeling approach. Memory & Cognition, 42(3), 434-447. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0367-9
Campitelli, G., & Labollita, M. (2010). Correlations of cognitive reflection with judgments and choices. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(3), 182-191.
Čavojová, V., & Hanák, R. (2016). Cultures influences on cognitive reflection. In J. V. Cohn, S. Schatz, H. Freeman, and D. J. Y. Combs (Eds.), Modeling Sociocultural Influences on Decision Making: Understanding Conflict, Enabling Stability (pp. 85-102). Routledge.
Cueva, C., Iturbe-Ormaetxe, I., Mata-Perez, E., Ponti, G., Sartarelli, M., & Yu, H. (2016). Cognitive (ir)reflection: New experimental evidence. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 64, 81-93. https://doi.org/0.1016/j.socec.2015.09.002
Del Missier, F., Mäntylä, T., & Bruin, W. B. (2012). Decision‐making competence, executive functioning, and general cognitive abilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(4), 331-351. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.731
Erceg, N., & Bubić, A. (2017). One test, five scoring procedures: Different ways of approaching the cognitive reflection test. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 29(3), 381-392. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2016.1278004
Erceg, N., Galić, Z., & Ružojčić, M. (2020). A reflection on cognitive reflection-testing convergent/divergent validity of two measures of cognitive reflection. Judgment & Decision Making, 15(5). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500007907
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25-42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732
Fuster, B., Agulló Candela, J., Ferreira Magalhaes, M., Fuster, A., Kostova, M., & Sartarelli, M. (2016). Habilidad Cognitiva y Sistemas de Evaluación. En M. T. Tortosa Ybáñez, S. Grau Company, and J. D. Álvarez Teruel (Coords.), XIV Jornadas de Redes de Investigación en Docencia Universitaria: investigación, innovación y enseñanza universitaria: enfoques pluridisciplinares (pp. 2580-2593)
Johnson, E. D., Tubau, E., & De Neys, W. (2016). The doubting system 1: Evidence for automatic substitution sensitivity. Acta Psychologica, 164, 56-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.12.008
Meza, J. M., Aranda, C. E, Olalde, B. R., Palacios, S. (2022). Sesgos cognitivos y la discriminación de noticias falsas en una muestra de adultos mexicanos. Revista de Psicología de la Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, 11 (27), 2.
Morsanyi, K., Busdraghi, C., & Primi, C. (2014). Mathematical anxiety is linked to reduced cognitive reflection: A potential road from discomfort in the mathematics classroom to susceptibility to biases. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 10(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-10-31
Morsanyi, K., Prado, J., & Richland, L. E. (2018). Editorial: The role of reasoning in mathematical thinking. Thinking & Reasoning, 24(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2018.1435425
Noori, M. (2016). Cognitive reflection as a predictor of susceptibility to behavioral anomalies. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1), 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500007634.
Olalde, B. R. (2021). Procesamiento dual y conocimiento social. Interacción del razonamiento lógico-heurístico y las creencias sobre los estereotipos sociales del colectivo LGTBI y la comunidad gitana. Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, Argitalpen Zerbitzua.
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J., Koehler, D., & Fugelsang, J. (2016). Is the cognitive reflection test a measure of both reflection and intuition? Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 341-348. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0576-1
Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2015). Everyday consequences of analytic thinking. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 425-432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415604610
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
Primi, C., Donati, M. A., Chiesi, F., & Morsanyi, K. (2017). Are there gender differences in cognitive reflection? Invariance and differences related to mathematics. Thinking & Reasoning, 36(5), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2017.1387606
Primi, C., Morsanyi, K., Chiesi, F., & Donati, M. A. (2014). Item response theory analysis of the cognitive reflection test: Testing the psychometric properties of the original scale and a newly developed 8-item version. Paper presented at the 2799- 2804. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1883
Primi, C., Morsanyi, K., Chiesi, F., Donati, M. A., & Hamilton, J. (2016). The development and testing of a new version of the cognitive reflection test applying item response theory (IRT). Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29(5), 453- 469. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1883
Shi, X., & An, N. (2012). Cognitive ability and psychological biases: Perspective from chinese stock individual investors. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:513883/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Sinayev, A., & Peters, E. (2015). Cognitive reflection vs. calculation in decision making. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 532. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00532
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 672. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.672
Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2016). Toward a rationality quotient (rq). The Thinking Mind: A Festschrift for Ken Manktelow, 202. http://keithstanovich.com/Site/Research_on_Reasoning_files/Stanovich%20in%20Galbraith_proofs.pdf
Szaszi, B., Szollosi, A., Palfi, B., & Aczel, B. (2017). The cognitive reflection test revisited: Exploring the ways individuals solve the test. Thinking & Reasoning, 23(3), 207-234. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2017.1292954
Thomson, K. S., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2016). Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1), 99-113. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500007622
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2011). The cognitive reflection test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Memory & Cognition, 39(7), 1275-1289. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2014a). Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the cognitive reflection test. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 147-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.844729
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2014b). Rational thinking and cognitive sophistication: Development, cognitive abilities, and thinking dispositions. Developmental Psychology, 50(4), 1037-1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034910
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
Zhang, D. C., Highhouse, S., & Rada, T. B. (2016). Explaining sex differences on the Cognitive Reflection Test. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 425-427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.034
Copyright (c) 2023 Servicio de Publicaciones, University of Murcia (Spain)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The works published in this journal are subject to the following terms:
1. The Publications Service of the University of Murcia (the publisher) retains the property rights (copyright) of published works, and encourages and enables the reuse of the same under the license specified in paragraph 2.
© Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de Murcia, 2022
2. The works are published in the online edition of the journal under a Creative Commons Reconocimiento-CompartirIgual 4.0 (legal text). You can copy, use, distribute, transmit and publicly display, provided that: i) you cite the author and the original source of publication (journal, editorial and URL of the work), ii) are not used for commercial purposes, iii ) mentions the existence and specifications of this license.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
3. Conditions of self-archiving. Is allowed and encouraged the authors to disseminate electronically pre-print versions (version before being evaluated and sent to the journal) and / or post-print (version reviewed and accepted for publication) of their works before publication, as it encourages its earliest circulation and diffusion and thus a possible increase in its citation and scope between the academic community. RoMEO Color: Green.
