The Cognitive Reflection Test: familiarity and predictive power in professionals

The CRT is an increasingly well-known and used test of bias susceptibility. While alternatives are being developed, the original remains in widespread use and this has led to its becoming increasingly familiar to psychology students (Stieger & Reips, 2016), resulting in inflated scores. Extending this work, we measure the effect of prior exposure to the CRT in a sample of oil industry professionals. These engineers and geoscientists completed the CRT, seven bias tasks and rated their familiarity with all of these. Key results were that: familiarity increased CRT scores but tended not to reduce bias susceptibility; and industry personnel, even without prior CRT exposure, scored very highly on the CRT greatly reducing its predictive power. Conclusions are that the standard CRT is not a useful tool for assessing bias susceptibility in highly numerate professionals – and doubly so when they have previously been exposed.

[1]  D. Kahneman Thinking, Fast and Slow , 2011 .

[2]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[3]  K. Stanovich,et al.  The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks , 2011, Memory & cognition.

[4]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Calibration of probabilities: the state of the art to 1980 , 1982 .

[5]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Calibration of Probabilities: The State of the Art , 1977 .

[6]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test , 2016, Judgment and Decision Making.

[7]  P C Wason,et al.  Reasoning about a Rule , 1968, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[8]  Keith E. Stanovich,et al.  Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test , 2014 .

[9]  E. C. Capen,et al.  The Difficulty of Assessing Uncertainty (includes associated papers 6422 and 6423 and 6424 and 6425 ) , 1976 .

[10]  S. Stieger,et al.  A limitation of the Cognitive Reflection Test: familiarity , 2016, PeerJ.

[11]  S. Frederick Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 19, Number 4—Fall 2005—Pages 25–42 Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making , 2022 .

[12]  M. Bazerman Judgment in Managerial Decision Making , 1990 .

[13]  Maya Bar-Hillel,et al.  On the subjective probability of compound events , 1973 .

[14]  Ellen Peters,et al.  Development and Testing of an Abbreviated Numeracy Scale: A Rasch Analysis Approach: Rasch-Based Numeracy Scale , 2013 .

[15]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[16]  Nicholas Burns,et al.  The Cognitive Reflection Test: how much more than Numerical Ability? , 2013, CogSci.

[17]  Caterina Primi,et al.  The development and testing of a new version of the cognitive reflection test applying item response theory (irt). , 2016 .

[18]  L. J. Chapman,et al.  Genesis of popular but erroneous psychodiagnostic observations. , 1967, Journal of abnormal psychology.