IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/subboe/v63y2018i3p56-67n4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender Differences and Other Findings on the Cognitive Reflection Test

Author

Listed:
  • Avram Laura-Augustina

    (Babeș-Bolyai University, Romania)

Abstract

Intelligence is the traditional element of interest when measuring the human cognitive abilities. However, intelligence is complex and researchers are constantly finding new angles of looking at it. One such angle is reflective reasoning. Sometimes individuals choose to override the intuitive answer and by engaging in further reflection they reach the correct answer. The cognitive reflection test (CRT) measures a person’s ability to suppress their incorrect intuitive answer in favor of reflection that should then lead to the correct response. The test contains three short mathematically based problems, which measure, among others, cognitive ability, mathematical abilities and cognitive reflection. Using a sample of 195 students from a state university, one of the largest universities in Romania, we explore the extent to which a variety of phenomena and trends identified by previous findings on CRT show similar results on our sample.

Suggested Citation

  • Avram Laura-Augustina, 2018. "Gender Differences and Other Findings on the Cognitive Reflection Test," Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Oeconomica, Sciendo, vol. 63(3), pages 56-67, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:subboe:v:63:y:2018:i:3:p:56-67:n:4
    DOI: 10.2478/subboec-2018-0014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/subboec-2018-0014
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/subboec-2018-0014?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oechssler, Jörg & Roider, Andreas & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2009. "Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 147-152, October.
    2. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Kujal, Praveen & Lenkei, Balint, 2019. "Cognitive reflection test: Whom, how, when," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:1:p:20-33 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. M. Christopher Auld & Nirmal Sidhu, 2005. "Schooling, cognitive ability and health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1019-1034, October.
    6. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:3:p:182-191 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. 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.
    3. Lauber, Arne & March, Christoph & Sahm, Marco, 2023. "Optimal and fair prizing in sequential round-robin tournaments: Experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 30-51.
    4. Mariam Raheem & Ain ul Momina, 2021. "Do Underlying Risk Preferences explain Individuals’ Cognitive Ability? Evidence from a Sample of Pakistani Students," Lahore Journal of Economics, Department of Economics, The Lahore School of Economics, vol. 26(1), pages 85-122, Jan-June.
    5. Benjamin Enke & Uri Gneezy & Brian Hall & David Martin & Vadim Nelidov & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2020. "Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8168, CESifo.
    6. Königsheim, C. & Lukas, M. & Nöth, M., 2019. "Salience theory: Calibration and heterogeneity in probability distortion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 477-495.
    7. Brice Corgnet & Mark Desantis & David Porter, 2018. "What Makes a Good Trader? On the Role of Intuition and Reflection on Trader Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 73(3), pages 1113-1137, June.
    8. Huong Trang Kim, 2023. "Linking Trait Affectivity, Cognitive Ability, and Preferences Among Top Managers: Insights From a Lab-In-The-Field Experiment," Evaluation Review, , vol. 47(3), pages 479-503, June.
    9. Lorenzo Esposito & Lorenzo Marrese, 2021. "The impact of cognitive skills on investment decisions. An empirical assessment and policy suggestions," DISCE - Quaderni del Dipartimento di Politica Economica dipe0019, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimenti e Istituti di Scienze Economiche (DISCE).
    10. 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.
    11. Tyran, Jean-Robert & Stephens, Thomas A, 2012. "?At least I didn?t lose money? Nominal Loss Aversion Shapes Evaluations of Housing Transactions," CEPR Discussion Papers 9198, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Amador-Hidalgo, Luis & Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Espín, Antonio M. & García-Muñoz, Teresa & Hernández-Román, Ana, 2021. "Cognitive abilities and risk-taking: Errors, not preferences," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    13. Roman M. Sheremeta, 2016. "Impulsive Behavior in Competition: Testing Theories of Overbidding in Rent-Seeking Contests," Working Papers 16-21, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    14. Jimenez, Natalia & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael & Tyran, Jean-Robert & Wengström, Erik, 2018. "Thinking fast, thinking badly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 41-44.
    15. Dendir, Seife & Orlov, Alexei G. & Roufagalas, John, 2019. "Do economics courses improve students’ analytical skills? A Difference-in-Difference estimation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-20.
    16. Neyse, Levent & Fossen, Frank M. & Johannesson, Magnus & Dreber, Anna, 2023. "Cognitive reflection and 2D:4D: Evidence from a large population sample," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 209(C), pages 288-307.
    17. Jinrui Pan & Jason Shachat & Sijia Wei, 2020. "Cognitive reflection and economic order quantity inventory management: An experimental investigation," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(6), pages 998-1009, September.
    18. Fruchter, Gila E. & Wiszniewska-Matyszkiel, Agnieszka, 2024. "How responsive should a firm be to customers’ expectations?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 314(1), pages 323-339.
    19. Ruffle, Bradley J. & Wilson, Anne E., 2019. "Tat will tell: Tattoos and time preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 566-585.
    20. Thomas Meissner & Xavier Gassmann & Corinne Faure & Joachim Schleich, 2023. "Individual characteristics associated with risk and time preferences: A multi country representative survey," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 66(1), pages 77-107, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    cognitive reflection test; decision making; reflection;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
    • D89 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Other
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    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:vrs:subboe:v:63:y:2018:i:3:p:56-67:n:4. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    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.