IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intell/v90y2022ics0160289621001033.html

Normative responding on cognitive bias tasks: Some evidence for a weak rationality factor that is mostly explained by numeracy and actively open-minded thinking

Author

Listed:
  • Erceg, Nikola
  • Galić, Zvonimir
  • Bubić, Andreja

Abstract

We conducted two studies with two goals in mind. First, we investigated the dimensionality of several prominent cognitive bias tasks to see whether a single rationality factor can explain a performance on these tasks. Second, we validated this factor by correlating it with a number of constructs from its nomological network (fluid intelligence, numeracy, actively open-minded thinking, conspiracy and superstitious thinking, personality traits) and several real-life outcomes (decision-outcome inventory, job and career satisfaction, peer-rated decision-making quality). Although in both studies one-factor solution was the most appropriate for our tasks, this factor (i.e., “rationality factor”) was weak and only able to account for modest portion of variance among the tasks. Across both studies, the two strongest correlates of this rationality factor were numeracy and actively open-minded thinking. We conclude that cognitive bias tasks are highly heterogeneous, having very little in common. What they had in common, however, was largely underpinned by abilities and dispositions assessed with numeracy and actively open-minded thinking. We discuss how our findings relate to the dual-process theories and offer our view on the place of rationality in a broader model of human intelligence.

Suggested Citation

  • Erceg, Nikola & Galić, Zvonimir & Bubić, Andreja, 2022. "Normative responding on cognitive bias tasks: Some evidence for a weak rationality factor that is mostly explained by numeracy and actively open-minded thinking," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:90:y:2022:i:c:s0160289621001033
    DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2021.101619
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289621001033
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.intell.2021.101619?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yigal Attali & Maya Bar-Hillel, 2020. "The False Allure of Fast Lures," Discussion Paper Series dp733, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    2. Saima Ghazal & Edward T. Cokely & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2014. "Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: Numeracy and metacognition," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 15-34, January.
    3. Edward T. Cokely & Colleen M. Kelley, 2009. "Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk: A protocol analysis and process model evaluation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(1), pages 20-33, February.
    4. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    5. Gordon Pennycook & James Allan Cheyne & Nathaniel Barr & Derek J. Koehler & Jonathan A. Fugelsang, 2015. "On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(6), pages 549-563, November.
    6. Edward T. Cokely & Mirta Galesic & Eric Schulz & Saima Ghazal & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2012. "Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(1), pages 25-47, January.
    7. Peter, J Paul & Churchill, Gilbert A, Jr & Brown, Tom J, 1993. "Caution in the Use of Difference Scores in Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 19(4), pages 655-662, March.
    8. Sobkow, Agata & Olszewska, Angelika & Traczyk, Jakub, 2020. "Multiple numeric competencies predict decision outcomes beyond fluid intelligence and cognitive reflection," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    9. Rosseel, Yves, 2012. "lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i02).
    10. Nikola Erceg & Zvonimir Galić & Mitja RužojÄ ić, 2020. "A reflection on cognitive reflection – testing convergent/divergent validity of two measures of cognitive reflection," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(5), pages 741-755, September.
    11. Arkes, Hal R. & Blumer, Catherine, 1985. "The psychology of sunk cost," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 124-140, February.
    12. Keela S. Thomson & Daniel M. Oppenheimer, 2016. "Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 99-113, January.
    13. Yigal Attali & Maya Bar-Hillel, 2020. "The false allure of fast lures," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(1), pages 93-111, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:4:p:720-744 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Gignac, Gilles E. & Stevens, Elizabeth M., 2024. "Attitude toward numbers: A better predictor of financial literacy and intelligence than need for cognition," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nikola Erceg & Zvonimir Galić & Mitja RužojÄ ić, 2020. "A reflection on cognitive reflection – testing convergent/divergent validity of two measures of cognitive reflection," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(5), pages 741-755, September.
    2. Otero, Inmaculada & Salgado, Jesús F. & Moscoso, Silvia, 2022. "Cognitive reflection, cognitive intelligence, and cognitive abilities: A meta-analysis," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    3. Ray Saadaoui Mallek & Mohamed Albaity, 2019. "Individual differences and cognitive reflection across gender and nationality the case of the United Arab Emirates," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 1567965-156, January.
    4. Yigal Attali & Maya Bar-Hillel, 2020. "The False Allure of Fast Lures," Discussion Paper Series dp733, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    5. Nicolas Eber & Patrick Roger & Tristan Roger, 2024. "Finance and intelligence: An overview of the literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 503-554, April.
    6. Białek Michał & Węgrzyn Michał & Meyers Ethan A., 2021. "Escalation of commitment is independent of numeracy and cognitive reflection. Failed replication and extension of Staw (1976)," Economics and Business Review, Sciendo, vol. 7(2), pages 5-16, June.
    7. Sobkow, Agata & Olszewska, Angelika & Traczyk, Jakub, 2020. "Multiple numeric competencies predict decision outcomes beyond fluid intelligence and cognitive reflection," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    8. Yigal Attali & Maya Bar-Hillel, 2020. "The false allure of fast lures," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(1), pages 93-111, January.
    9. André Mata & Tiago Almeida, 2014. "Using metacognitive cues to infer others' thinking," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(4), pages 349-359, July.
    10. Corgnet, Brice & DeSantis, Mark & Porter, David, 2021. "Information aggregation and the cognitive make-up of market participants," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    11. Sven Gruener, 2024. "Determinants of Gullibility to Misinformation: A Study of Climate Change, COVID-19 and Artificial Intelligence," Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, , vol. 36(1), pages 58-78, January.
    12. M. Asher Lawson & Richard P. Larrick & Jack B. Soll, 2020. "Comparing fast thinking and slow thinking: The relative benefits of interventions, individual differences, and inferential rules," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(5), pages 660-684, September.
    13. Mondal, Supratik & Traczyk, Jakub, 2023. "Conditionality of adaptiveness: Investigating the relationship between numeracy and adaptive behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    14. Gignac, Gilles E. & Stevens, Elizabeth M., 2024. "Attitude toward numbers: A better predictor of financial literacy and intelligence than need for cognition," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    15. Taylor, Matthew P., 2020. "Heterogeneous motivation and cognitive ability in the lab," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    16. Brent Moritz & Enno Siemsen & Mirko Kremer, 2014. "Judgmental Forecasting: Cognitive Reflection and Decision Speed," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 23(7), pages 1146-1160, July.
    17. Saima Ghazal & Edward T. Cokely & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2014. "Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: Numeracy and metacognition," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 15-34, January.
    18. Philip W. S. Newall, 2016. "Downside financial risk is misunderstood," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(5), pages 416-423, September.
    19. Joffrey Fuhrer & Florian Cova, 2020. "“Quick and dirty†: Intuitive cognitive style predicts trust in Didier Raoult and his hydroxychloroquine-based treatment against COVID-19," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(6), pages 889-908, November.
    20. Jakub Traczyk & Agata Sobkow & Kamil Fulawka & Jakub Kus & Dafina Petrova & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2018. "Numerate decision makers don't use more effortful strategies unless it pays: A process tracing investigation of skilled and adaptive strategy selection in risky decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(4), pages 372-381, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:intell:v:90:y:2022:i:c:s0160289621001033. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligence .

    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.