The cognitive reflection test revisited: exploring the ways individuals solve the test

Thinking and Reasoning 23 (3):207-234 (2017)

Abstract
Individuals’ propensity not to override the first answer that comes to mind is thought to be a crucial cause behind many failures in reasoning. In the present study, we aimed to explore the strategies used and the abilities employed when individuals solve the cognitive reflection test, the most widely used measure of this tendency. Alongside individual differences measures, protocol analysis was employed to unfold the steps of the reasoning process in solving the CRT. This exploration revealed that there are several ways people solve or fail the test. Importantly, 77% of the cases in which reasoners gave the correct final answer in our protocol analysis, they started their response with the correct answer or with a line of thought which led to the correct answer. We also found that 39% of the incorrect responders reflected on their first response. The findings indicate that the suppression of the first answer may not be the only crucial feature of reflectivity in the CRT and that the lack of relevant knowledge is a prominent cause of the reasoning errors. Additionally, we confirmed that the CRT is a multi-faceted construct: both numeracy and reflectivity account for performance. The results can help to better apprehend the “whys and whens” of the decision errors in heuristics and biases tasks and to further refine existing explanatory models.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/13546783.2017.1292954
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 43,865
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition Advancing the Debate.Jonathan Evans & Keith E. Stanovich - 2013 - Perspectives on Psychological Science 8 (3):223-241.
In Two Minds: Dual-Process Accounts of Reasoning.Jonathan StB. T. Evans - 2003 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7 (10):454-459.
Reflection and Reasoning in Moral Judgment.Joshua D. Greene - 2012 - Cognitive Science 36 (1):163-177.

View all 25 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Through the Looking Glass, and What We Find There.Eric Saidel - 2016 - Biology and Philosophy 31 (3):335-352.
Reflection and Reasoning in Moral Judgment.Joshua D. Greene - 2012 - Cognitive Science 36 (1):163-177.
Cognitive Abilities and Behavioral Biases.Jörg Oechssler, Andreas Roider & Patrick W. Schmitz - 2009 - Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 72 (1):147-152.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-03-02

Total views
19 ( #451,064 of 2,266,142 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #180,844 of 2,266,142 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature