M. Toplak

Cognitive Neuroscience · 2000–2020

A researcher in the Science corpus: 12 papers; trusts 51 researchers and is trusted by 34 researchers here, as inferred from the citation graph.

Subfields

• Cognitive Neuroscience — 74 citations into it; #6,716 of 10,852 by trust here, #4,716 by citations
• General Decision Sciences — 64 citations into it; #324 of 1,995 by trust here, #286 by citations
• Experimental and Cognitive Psychology — 54 citations into it; #1,069 of 9,731 by trust here, #1,432 by citations
• Social Psychology — 38 citations into it; #4,962 of 15,694 by trust here, #10,985 by citations
• Developmental and Educational Psychology — 37 citations into it; #867 of 8,223 by trust here, #857 by citations
• Artificial Intelligence — 36 citations into it
• Philosophy — 28 citations into it; #292 of 1,040 by trust here, #399 by citations
• Sociology and Political Science — 28 citations into it

Whom M. Toplak trusts overall

Their strongest outbound trust, strongest first, inferred from their citations.

1. K. Stanovich
2. Daniel Kahneman
3. J. Baron
4. R. F. West
5. Jonathan Evans
6. Antoine Bechara
7. Kenneth Gilhooly
8. Amos Tversky
9. Deanna Kuhn
10. Akira Miyake

Who trusts M. Toplak overall

1. K. Stanovich
2. Gordon Pennycook
3. R. F. West
4. Penny M. Pexman
5. K. S. Thomson
6. Caterina Primi
7. Jala Rizeq
8. Geoffrey P. Goodwin
9. John D. Campbell
10. Albert N. Katz

Papers from M. Toplak's perspective

Ordered by how strongly the researchers M. Toplak trusts endorse each paper. Same corpus, a different order for every researcher.

1. Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness
2. A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice
3. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?-Open Peer Commentary-Gone with the wind: Individual differences in heuristics and biases undermine the implication of
4. Choices, Values, and Frames
5. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment.
6. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.
7. What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought
8. The magical number two, plus or minus: Dual-process theory as a theory of cognitive kinds
9. A model of heuristic judgment
10. Social cognitive neuroscience: a review of core processes. (Annual Review of Psychology)

Their papers

• On the uses of sarcastic irony (2000) — 168 citations
• Myside Bias, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence (2013) — 358 citations
• An examination of the underlying dimensional structure of three domains of contaminated mindware: paranormal beliefs, conspiracy beliefs, and anti-science attitudes (2020) — 87 citations
• Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test (2014) — 785 citations
• Practitioner review: do performance-based measures and ratings of executive function assess the same construct? (2013) — 1,300 citations
• Defining features versus incidental correlates of Type 1 and Type 2 processing (2012) — 189 citations
• The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks (2011) — 1,019 citations
• The complexity of developmental predictions from dual process models (2011) — 180 citations
• Heuristics and Biases as Measures of Critical Thinking: Associations with Cognitive Ability and Thinking Dispositions (2008) — 437 citations
• The reasoning skills and thinking dispositions of problem gamblers: a dual‐process taxonomy (2007) — 103 citations
• Associations between myside bias on an informal reasoning task and amount of post‐secondary education (2003) — 128 citations
• The domain specificity and generality of disjunctive reasoning: Searching for a generalizable critical thinking skill (2002) — 122 citations