Cognitive reflection test: The effects of the items sequence on scores and response time

Abstract

This paper aims to expand the literature on the determinants of the Cognitive Reflection Test scores, exploring the effects that the items sequence has on (1) Cognitive Reflection Test scores, (2) response time, (3) the relationship between Cognitive Reflection Test scores and response time, and (4) Cognitive Reflection scores, response time, and the relationship between both variables on men and women. The current study also explored the sex differences on Cognitive Reflection Test and response time according to items sequence. The results showed that manipulating the items sequence, the performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test improved significantly, but the response time were not significantly affected, although the results suggest that first items of the sequence could be working as training items. A positive relationship between Cognitive Reflection Test scores and response time was also found, except when the scores were maximized. Finally, some differences between men and women on the results were also found. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Mindfulness-based stress reduction is linked with an improved Cognitive Reflection Test score

“…We believe this link could be interesting to study in the context of mindfulness practice. Our results are in part consistent with previous studies (Frederick, 2005 ; Ring et al, 2016 ; Brañas-Garza et al, 2019 ; Otero and Alonso, 2023 ) regarding a gender effect. We observed a gender effect on the overall CRT score, but further investigation of each riddle only showed this effect on the “lily pads” riddle.…”

Sex Differences in Cognitive Reflection: A Meta-Analysis

“…Scientifically, it seems relevant to meta-analytically estimate the magnitude of sex differences on CR since CR tests scores are associated with many aspects of everyday life. For instance, people who score higher on CR tests show less risk aversion and greater patience of recompense return (r ranges from 0.10 to 0.29; Campitelli and Labollita 2010;Cokely and Kelley 2009;Frederick 2005); they use fewer shortcuts making decisions and judgments (the magnitude of the effect size varied according to the heuristic; Hoppe and Kusterer 2011;Moritz et al 2014;Sirota and Juanchich 2011;Toplak et al 2011Toplak et al , 2014; they are more resistant to stereotypes and prejudices (Lubian and Untertrifaller 2013); they have better experience of humor (r = 0.35; Ventis 2015); they tend to hold fewer religious and paranormal beliefs (r ranges from −0.15 to −0.33; Cheyne and Pennycook 2013;Pennycook et al 2012;Shenhav et al 2012); they show more subjective well-being (r = 0.13; Lado et al 2021); they score higher on cognitive abilities tests (p ranges from 0.53 to 0.79; Otero 2019; Otero and Alonso 2023;Otero et al 2022); and they show higher results on training proficiency and job performance (p ranges from 0.31 to 0.37: and 0.32 to 0.36, respectively; Otero et al 2021;Salgado et al 2019;Toplak et al 2014), among others.…”