IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v11y2016i1p99-113_9.html

Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test

Author

Listed:
  • Thomson, Keela S.
  • Oppenheimer, Daniel M.

Abstract

Much research in cognitive psychology has focused on the tendency to conserve limited cognitive resources. The CRT is the predominant measure of such miserly information processing, and also predicts a number of frequently studied decision-making traits (such as belief bias and need for cognition). However, many subjects from common subject populations have already been exposed to the questions, which might add considerable noise to data. Moreover, the CRT has been shown to be confounded with numeracy. To increase the pool of available questions and to try to address numeracy confounds, we developed and tested the CRT-2. CRT-2 questions appear to rely less on numeracy than the original CRT but appear to measure closely related constructs in other respects. Crucially, substantially fewer subjects from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk have been previously exposed to CRT-2 questions. Though our primary purpose was investigating the CRT-2, we also found that belief bias questions appear suitable as an additional source of new items. Implications and remaining measurement challenges are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomson, Keela S. & Oppenheimer, Daniel M., 2016. "Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 99-113, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:99-113_9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500007622/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Takeshi Ojima & Shinsuke Ikeda, 2025. "Commitment To Honesty," TUPD Discussion Papers 76, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Tohoku University.
    2. Mathieu Chevrier & Sébastien Massoni, 2026. "When Does Advisor Confidence Improve Decisions? Evidence from Human and Algorithmic Advice," GREDEG Working Papers 2026-09, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    3. repec:osf:socarx:x8efq_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Deng, Zihao & Deng, Zhaohua, 2025. "Becoming a cognitive miser? Antecedents and consequences of addictive ChatGPT use," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 383(C).
    5. Hochleitner, Anna & Tufano, Fabio & Facchini, Giovanni & Rueda, Valeria & Eberhardt, Markus, 2025. "How Tinted Are Your Glasses? Gender Views, Beliefs and Recommendations in Hiring," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 7/2025, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    6. Cameron Martel & Mohsen Mosleh & David G. Rand, 2021. "You’re Definitely Wrong, Maybe: Correction Style Has Minimal Effect on Corrections of Misinformation Online," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 120-133.
    7. Brandts, Jordi & Busom, Isabel & Lopez-Mayan, Cristina, 2025. "Do giving voice and social information help in revising a misconception about rent–control?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    8. Estache, Antonio & Foucart, Renaud & Georgalos, Konstantinos, 2025. "Delegating decisions to a lottery can reduce preference for control," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 257(C).
    9. Vieira, José Geraldo Vidal & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2026. "A survey-based priority elicitation protocol for community-based resource allocation decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 328(3), pages 925-937.
    10. Alt, Marius & Bruns, Hendrik & Della Valle, Nives, 2024. "The more the better? Synergies of prosocial interventions and effects on behavioural spillovers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    11. Mariken van der Velden & Felicia Loecherbach, 2021. "Epistemic Overconfidence in Algorithmic News Selection," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(4), pages 182-197.
    12. Cardoso, Ricardo Lopes & de Oliveira Leite, Rodrigo & Balloni, Armando & Fonseca, Thiago Richter, 2024. "When enough is enough: The impact of combined graphical impression management on financial judgement," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    13. Plotkina, Daria & Hoffmann, Arvid O.I. & Roger, Patrick & D’Hondt, Catherine, 2024. "Gender vs. personality: The role of masculinity in explaining cognitive style," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    14. Comerford, David A., 2025. "Cognitive reflection, arithmetic ability and financial literacy independently predict both inflation expectations and forecast accuracy," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 517-531.
    15. Marek Muszyński & Natalia Banasik-Jemielniak & Tomasz Żółtak & Kaili Rimfeld & Nicholas G. Shakeshaft & Kerry L. Schofield & Margherita Malanchini & Artur Pokropek, 2026. "Moving intelligence measurement online: adaptation and validation of the Polish version of the Pathfinder general cognitive ability test," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 329-354, February.
    16. Zhang, Si-Qi & Li, Ming-Hui & Li, Yu-Chu & Rao, Li-Lin, 2025. "Effects of childhood environments on the discernment of health misinformation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 380(C).
    17. Bao, Leo & Gangadharan, Lata & Leister, C. Matthew, 2025. "Deterrence in networks," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 501-517.
    18. Sipos, Norbert & Lukovszki, Lívia & Rideg, András & Vörös, Zsófia, 2025. "Önreflexió, döntéshozatal és a vállalkozók affektív jólléte [Cognitive reflectiveness, decision-making, and entrepreneurs affective well-being]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(9), pages 976-991.
    19. Fossen, Frank M. & Neyse, Levent & Schröder, Carsten, 2025. "Does Cognitive Reflection Relate to Preferences and Socioeconomic Outcomes?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 3(2), pages 303-343.
    20. Tom Buchanan & Rotem Perach & Deborah Husbands & Amber F Tout & Ekaterina Kostyuk & James Kempley & Laura Joyner, 2024. "Individual differences in sharing false political information on social media: Deliberate and accidental sharing, motivations and positive schizotypy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(6), pages 1-37, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:99-113_9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.