Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making

By T. Waraich. 2016

1,569 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3cbfe3cc09d57e8935223f772d66fe46bc56fd2f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Gender, Stock Market Participation and Financial Literacy (2015, unknown): “…also be related to variation in preferences, in particular since e.g. risk aversion has been found to correlate negatively with cognitive ability (Frederick 2005, Benjamin et al. 2006, Dohmen et al. 2010), however Christelis et al. (2010) argue that the link between cognitive ability and…”
Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test (2016, methodology): “It is possible that this numeracy confound causes or contributes to observed gender differences such that men typically score higher than women on the CRT (e.g., Frederick, 2005).”
Foreign language effects on moral dilemma judgments: An analysis using the CNI model (2019, background): “4 For additional exploratory analyses that go beyond the primary question of this study, participants were also asked to complete the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT, Frederick, 2005).”
Performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test is stable across time (2018, methodology): “A popular and widely used measures of ACS is the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) (Frederick, 2005).”
Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3 (2022, methodology): “Interestingly, this conclusion is at odds with our earlier simulations on the CRT, where GPT-3 consistently chose the intuitive but wrong over the more deliberate but correct answer.”
An examination of the underlying dimensional structure of three domains of contaminated mindware: paranormal beliefs, conspiracy beliefs, and anti-science attitudes (2020, unknown): “The expanded seven-item version of the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT; originally from Frederick, 2005; Toplak et al., 2014) was used.”
IQ, Expectations, and Choice (2019, unknown): “Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic perspectives 19 (4), 25–42. Fuster, A., R. Perez-Truglia, M. Wiederholt, and B. Zafar (2018). Expectations with endogenous information acquisition: An experimental investigation. Technical report, National Bureau of ”
Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality (2019, methodology): “In a post hoc analysis, we entered discernment as the dependent variable in a regression with CRT performance, political ideology, and their product as predictors.”
Matching Firms, Managers, and Incentives (2015, unknown): “While there is some evidence that ðcognitiveÞ ability is positively related to risk taking ðFrederick 2005Þ, in our data there appears to be no correlation between risk attitudes and measures of human capital.”
Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. (2019, unknown): “Here we test these competing accounts in two studies (total N=3446 Mechanical Turk workers) by using the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) as a measure of the propensity to engage in analytical reasoning.”
Public Views on Policies Involving Nudges (2015, background): “cognitive reflection) systematically influence attitudes and behaviors (see e.g Slovic 1995; Frederick 2005; Kemmelmeier 2009).”
Belief in Fake News is Associated with Delusionality, Dogmatism, Religious Fundamentalism, and Reduced Analytic Thinking (2019, unknown): “, in the degree to which individuals have an “analytic cognitive style”) (Frederick, 2005; Pennycook, Koehler, & Fugelsang, 2015a; Stanovich & West, 2000).”
Consumer resistance and inertia of retail investors: Development of the resistance adoption inertia continuance (RAIC) framework (2020, unknown): “…the ease of understanding, the (Blanchett et al., 2018; Galliera, 2018), risk aversion (Anderson et al., 2018; Blanchett et al., 2018), risk attitude (Lee and Andrade, 2011), risk tolerance (Hallahan et al., 2004; Jonsson, S € oderberg, & Wilhelmsson, 2017), and time preference (Frederick, 2005).”
It’s a Trap! Instructional Manipulation Checks Prompt Systematic Thinking on “Tricky” Tasks (2015, methodology): “As the CRT is an individual difference measure with links to IQ (Frederick, 2005) and which is rarely affected by task order (Paxton et al., 2014; Paxton et al., 2012; Pinillos et al., 2011), IMCs appear to be powerful manipulations of attention and systematic thinking, highlighting that they…”