Individual differences in cognitive biases: Evidence against one-factor theory of rationality

Teovanović, Predrag; Knežević, Goran; Stankov, Lazar

doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.02.008

Cited by 66 publications

(120 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, little consensus is ever reached, and factor analyses of these tasks seldom reveal replicable results (e.g. Teovanović et al, ). We believe that, and will be testing, whether various interactions among cognitive abilities, monitoring output and control thresholds can explain performance on many decision tasks such as heuristic and thinking biases, as has been demonstrated on the exam‐like and context‐specific decision tasks used in this research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, much work has been performed to determine the factorial structure of individual differences in heuristic and thinking bias tasks (e.g. Bruine de Bruin, Parker & Fischhoff, 2007;Teovanović, Knežević & Stankov, 2015), or at least to cluster them on particular attributes (e.g. Carter, Kaufmann & Michel, 2010;Stanovich, Toplak & West, 2008).…”

Section: Implications and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Individual Differences in Decision Making Depend on Cognitive Abilities, Monitoring and Control

Jackson

Kleitman

Stankov

et al. 2016

Behavioral Decision Making

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decision making is the process by which actions are constructed and initiated. Across many research streams, this can be explained in terms of three broad cognitive processes: cognitive abilities that construct judgements and potential courses of action, and interacting monitoring and control processes that determine when to initiate them as behaviour. The aim of this research was to investigate the generality of individual differences in these processes, and their power to predict patterns of decision behaviour identified in our previous research. Undergraduate participants (N = 364) completed nine tests assessing cognitive abilities, monitoring confidence, control thresholds and various patterns of decision behaviour. The tests differed in their cognitive ability requirements and the nature of the payoffs associated with decisions. Cognitive abilities were a strong predictor of individuals' decision competence and optimality, while monitoring confidence and control thresholds were strong and unique predictors of their overall decisiveness, and reckless and hesitant errors. These results were strongest when the measures of cognitive abilities and monitoring confidence were derived from tests with the same cognitive requirements as the tests used to derive the decision behaviours and when the control threshold measure was derived from tests with the same decision payoffs as the test used to derive the decision behaviours. This effect was particularly pronounced for control thresholds, highlighting the domain‐specific nature of cognitive control processes. These findings demonstrate how cognitive abilities, monitoring output and control thresholds interact with cognitive requirements and context‐specific payoffs to drive individual differences in decision‐making behaviour. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implications and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual Differences in Decision Making Depend on Cognitive Abilities, Monitoring and Control

Jackson

Kleitman

Stankov

et al. 2016

Behavioral Decision Making

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, it is critical to conduct validity analyses to assess the accuracy of the inferences drawn from scores and the credibility of prior conclusions from studies using the CRT. Though prior research has investigated the underlying nature of the CRT scores (e.g., Primi et al, ; Teovanović, Knezevic, & Stankov, ), there exists a shortage of formal validity studies that draw from construct validity theory, the dominant approach to assess accuracy of psychometric test scores. By addressing the uncertain psychometric foundations of the CRT, a more comprehensive and accurate depiction of the underlying structure and possible degree of redundancy can be formed.…”

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

“…Lower deliberation is associated with stronger anchoring (Gal, Mrva, & Gajdosova, 2014;Teovanovi c, Kne zevi c, & Stankov, 2015) See also the following for null effects: (Oechssler et al, 2009;Plessner & Czenna, 2008;Welsh, Burns, & Delfabbro, 2013) Intertemporal choice…”

Section: Tasks Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lower deliberation is associated with higher levels of confidence (Hoppe & Kusterer, 2011;Noori, 2016;Sinayev & Peters, 2015;Teovanovi c et al, 2015) cognitive reflection test (Frederick, 2005) as our dependent variable, where higher scores demonstrate a greater ability to inhibit intuitive and incorrect answers.…”

Section: Intertemporal Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

Decision‐makers are resilient in the face of social exclusion

Juanchich

Walasek

Sirota

2018

British J of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing body of evidence suggests that social exclusion impairs people's capacity for active deliberation and logical reasoning. Building on this finding and on the postulate from the dual-process theory that analytical thinking is essential in order to make good judgements and decisions, we hypothesized that social exclusion will alter judgement and choice behaviour. We tested this hypothesis in three experiments in which social exclusion was manipulated using the Cyberball paradigm, an online ball-tossing game in which participants either received the ball a fair number of times or were excluded by the other two players. We focused on a range of tasks designed to be sensitive to participants' ability to engage in analytical thinking and careful deliberation, including the cognitive reflection test (Experiment 1) and a set of anchoring, intertemporal preference, disjunction, and confidence tasks (experiments 2 and 3). Our results unanimously failed to support the hypothesis that social exclusion influences people's judgements and decision-making. We discuss the implications of our findings for social exclusion theory.

show abstract

Individual differences in cognitive biases: Evidence against one-factor theory of rationality

Cited by 66 publications

References 55 publications

Individual Differences in Decision Making Depend on Cognitive Abilities, Monitoring and Control

Individual Differences in Decision Making Depend on Cognitive Abilities, Monitoring and Control

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

Decision‐makers are resilient in the face of social exclusion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About