Explaining sex differences on the Cognitive Reflection Test

Zhang, Don C.; Highhouse, Scott; Rada, Thaddeus B.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.034

Cited by 31 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As we described above, Zhang et al (2016) found that gender differences in cognitive reflection are explained by subjective numeracy. Nevertheless, it is problematic to interpret this result, because the subjective numeracy scale combines the measurement of participants' self-reported ability and their preference to work with numbers (Fagerlin et al, 2007).…”

Section: Studysupporting

confidence: 55%

“…For instance, Primi et al (2016) found that the gender difference in the CRT-L was significantly reduced after the effects of numeracy were controlled, and they became non-significant when the effect of subjective numeracy was controlled. Zhang, Highhouse, and Rada (2016) verified that gender differences could be entirely explained by differences in subjective numeracy, that is, individuals' perceived competence in dealing with quantitative information (in other words, their self-efficacy in the quantitative domain). Consistent with these findings, Thomson and Oppenheimer (2016) found that men outperformed females in the original CRT, but they did not find a gender difference in their newly developed four items that did not require any numerical computations (although they did involve numbers).…”

Section: Thinking and Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Some studies have also linked these findings to gender differences in cognitive reflection Primi et al, 2016;Zhang et al, 2016). Nevertheless, these studies did not investigate whether the effect of gender on CRT performance was mediated by math skills, MAor both.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Are there gender differences in cognitive reflection? Invariance and differences related to mathematics

Primi

Donati

Chiesi

et al. 2017

Thinking & Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CognitiveCognitive reflection is recognized as an important skill, which is necessary for making advantageous decisions. Even though gender differences in the Cognitive Reflection test (CRT) appear to be robust across multiple studies, little research has examined the source of the gender gap in performance. In Study 1, we tested the invariance of the scale across genders. In Study 2, we investigated the role of math anxiety, mathematical reasoning, and gender in CRT performance. The results attested the measurement equivalence of the Cognitive Reflection Test -Long (CRT-L), when administered to male and female students. Additionally, the results of the mediation analysis showed an indirect effect of gender on CRT-L performance through mathematical reasoning and math anxiety. The direct effect of gender was no longer statistically significant after accounting for the other variables. The current findings suggest that cognitive reflection is affected by numerical skills and related feelings. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Studysupporting

confidence: 55%

Section: Thinking and Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 81%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are there gender differences in cognitive reflection? Invariance and differences related to mathematics

Primi

Donati

Chiesi

et al. 2017

Thinking & Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rational and intuitive decision‐making styles were measured using subtests from the General Decision‐Making Style scale developed by Scott and Bruce () and used in previous CRT research (e.g., Zhang et al, ). Intuitive decision making represents one's tendency to rely on intuition when making decisions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Campitelli and Gerrans () reported that the CRT scores captured both abilities and disposition for males but only abilities for females. Zhang, Highhouse, and Rada () found that males perform substantially higher (Cohen's d = .37) than did females on the CRT, which they argue can be explained by quantitative self‐efficacy. Taken together, these studies demonstrate the present‐day inadequacy of CRT scores as a useful, meaningful measure in decision‐making literature; it is unclear which construct the CRT captures and in turn inhibits the ability to explain theoretical relationships with other constructs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the validity of inferences from scores on the cognitive reflection test

Blacksmith

Yang

Behrend

et al. 2019

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decision‐making researchers purport that a novel cognitive ability construct, cognitive reflection, explains variance in intuitive thinking processes that traditional mental ability constructs do not. However, researchers have questioned the validity of the primary measure because of poor construct conceptualization and lack of validity studies. Prior studies have not adequately aligned the analytical techniques with the theoretical basis of the construct, dual‐processing theory of reasoning. The present study assessed the validity of inferences drawn from the cognitive reflection test (CRT) scores. We analyzed response processes with an item response tree model, a method that aligns with the dual‐processing theory in order to interpret CRT scores. Findings indicate that the intuitive and reflective factors that the test purportedly measures were indistinguishable. Exploratory, post hoc analyses demonstrate that CRT scores are most likely capturing mental abilities. We suggest that future researchers recognize and distinguish between individual differences in cognitive abilities and cognitive processes.

show abstract

Anxiety‐induced miscalculations, more than differential inhibition of intuition, explain the gender gap in cognitive reflection

Juanchich

Sirota

Bonnefon

2020

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) is among the most common and well‐known instruments for measuring the propensity to engage reflective processing, in the context of the dual‐process theory of high‐level cognition. There is robust evidence that men perform better than women on this test—but we should be wary to conclude that men are more likely to engage in reflective processing than women. We consider several possible loci for the gender difference in CRT performance, and use mathematical modeling to show, across two studies, that the gender difference in CRT performance is more likely due to women making more mathematical mistakes (partially explained by their greater mathematics anxiety) than due to women being less likely to engage reflective processing. As a result, we argue that we need to use gender‐equivalent variants of the CRT, both to improve the quality of our instruments and to fulfill our social responsibility as scientists.

show abstract

Explaining sex differences on the Cognitive Reflection Test

Cited by 31 publications

References 24 publications

Are there gender differences in cognitive reflection? Invariance and differences related to mathematics

Are there gender differences in cognitive reflection? Invariance and differences related to mathematics

Assessing the validity of inferences from scores on the cognitive reflection test

Anxiety‐induced miscalculations, more than differential inhibition of intuition, explain the gender gap in cognitive reflection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About