Sex Differences in Cognitive Reflection: A Meta-Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Literature Search
2.2. Inclusion Criteria and Decision Rules
2.3. Meta-Analytic Method
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Aczel, Balazs, Bence Bago, Aba Szollosi, Andrei Foldes, and Bence Lukacs. 2015. Measuring individual differences in decision biases: Methodological considerations. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aktas, Büsra, Onurcan Yilmaz, and Hasan G. Bahçekapili. 2017. Moral pluralism on the trolley tracks: Different normative principles are used for different reasons in justifying moral judgments. Judgment and Decision Making 12: 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albaity, Mohamed, Mahfuzur Rahman, and Islam Shahidul. 2014. Cognitive reflection test and behavioral biases in Malaysia. Judgment and Decision Making 92: 148–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alós-Ferrer, Carlos, and Sabine Hügelschäfer. 2012. Faith in intuition and behavioral biases. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 841: 182–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alós-Ferrer, Carlos, Michele Garagnani, and Sabine Hügelschäfer. 2016. Cognitive reflection, decision biases, and response times. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avram, Laura A. 2018. Gender differences and other findings on the cognitive reflection test. Studia Universitatis Babes Bolyai-Oeconomica 633: 56–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bar-Hillel, Maya, Tom Noah, and Shane Frederick. 2019. Solving stumpers, CRT and CRAT: Are the abilities related? Judgment and Decision Making 145: 620–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baron, Jonathan, Sydney Scott, Katrina Fincher, and S. Emlen Metz. 2015. Why does the cognitive reflection test sometimes predict utilitarian moral judgment and other things? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 43: 265–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Białek, Michal, Max Bergelt, Yoshimasa Majima, and Derek. J. Koehler. 2019. Cognitive reflection but not reinforcement sensitivity is consistently associated with delay discounting of gains and losses. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics 12: 169–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Böckenholt, Ulf. 2012. The cognitive-miser response model: Testing for intuitive and deliberate reasoning. Psychometrika 772: 388–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosch-Domènech, Antoni, Pablo Brañas-Garza, and Antonio M. Espín. 2014. Can exposure to prenatal sex hormones 2D: 4D predict cognitive reflection? Psychoneuroendocrinology 43: 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bosley, Stacie A., Marc F. Bellemare, Linda Umwali, and Joshua York. 2019. Decision-making and vulnerability in a pyramid scheme fraud. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 80: 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brañas-Garza, Pablo, Praveen Kujal, and Balint Lenkei. 2019. Cognitive reflection test: Whom, how, when. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 82: 101455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bronstein, Michael V., Gordon Pennycook, Adam Bear, David G. Rand, and Tyrone. D. Cannon. 2019. Belief in fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism, and reduced analytic thinking. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 81: 108–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brosnan, Mark, Melissa Hollinworth, Konstantina Antoniadou, and Marcus Lewton. 2014. Is empathizing intuitive and systemizing deliberative? Personality and Individual Differences 66: 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Browne, Matthew, Gordon Pennycook, Belinda Goodwin, and Melinda McHenry. 2014. Reflective minds and open hearts: Cognitive style and personality predict religiosity and spiritual thinking in a community sample. European Journal of Social Psychology 447: 736–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broyd, Annabel, Ulrich Ettinger, and Volker Thoma. 2019. Thinking dispositions and cognitive reflection performance in schizotypy. Judgment and Decision Making 141: 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burger, Axel M., Stefan Pfattheicher, and Melissa Jauch. 2020. The role of motivation in the association of political ideology with cognitive performance. Cognition 195: 104124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Byrd, Nick, and Paul Conway. 2019. Not all who ponder count costs: Arithmetic reflection predicts utilitarian tendencies, but logical reflection predicts both deontological and utilitarian tendencies. Cognition 192: 103995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cáceres, Pablo, and René San Martín. 2017. Low cognitive impulsivity is associated with better gain and loss learning in a probabilistic decision-making task. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calvillo, Dustin P., Alexander B. Swan, and Abraham M. Rutchick. 2020. Ideological belief bias with political syllogisms. Thinking and Reasoning 262: 291–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campitelli, Guillermo, and Martín Labollita. 2010. Correlations of cognitive reflection with judgments and choices. Judgment and Decision Making 53: 182–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campitelli, Guillermo, and Paul Gerrans. 2014. Does the cognitive reflection test measure cognitive reflection? A mathematical modeling approach. Memory and Cognition 423: 434–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Capraro, Valerio, Brice Corgnet, Antonio M. Espín, and Roberto Hernán-González. 2017. Deliberation favours social efficiency by making people disregard their relative shares: Evidence from USA and India. Royal Society Open Science 42: 160605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Čavojová, Vladimíra, Eugen-Călin Secară, Marek Jurkovič, and Jakub Šrol. 2019. Reception and willingness to share pseudo-profound bullshit and their relation to other epistemically suspect beliefs and cognitive ability in Slovakia and Romania. Applied Cognitive Psychology 332: 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Jiuqing, and Cassidy Janssen. 2019. The relationship between an alternative form of cognitive reflection test and intertemporal choice. Studia Psychologica 612: 86–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheyne, James Allan, and Gordon Pennycook. 2013. Sleep paralysis postepisode distress: Modeling potential effects of episode characteristics, general psychological distress, beliefs, and cognitive style. Clinical Psychological Science 12: 135–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, Jacob. 1977. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
- Cokely, Edward T., and Colleen. M. Kelley. 2009. Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk: A protocol analysis and process model evaluation. Judgment and Decision Making 41: 20–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corgnet, Brice, Antonio M. Espín, and Roberto Hernán-González. 2015a. Creativity and cognitive skills among millennials: Thinking too much and creating too little. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corgnet, Brice, Antonio M. Espín, and Roberto Hernán-González. 2016. The cognitive basis of social behavior: Cognitive reflection overrides anti-social but not always prosocial motives. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 9: 287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corgnet, Brice, Antonio M. Espín, Roberto Hernán-González, Praveen Kujal, and Stephen Rassenti. 2015b. To trust, or not to trust: Cognitive reflection in trust games. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 64: 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cueva, Carlos, Iñigo Iturbe-Ormaetxe, Esther Mata-Pérez, Giovanni Ponti, Marcello Sartarelli, Haihan Yu, and Vita Zhukova. 2016. Cognitive ir reflection: New experimental evidence. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 64: 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Neys, Wim. 2017. Dual Process Theory 2.0. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Drummond, Caitlin, and Baruch Fischhoff. 2017. Development and validation of the scientific reasoning scale. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 301: 26–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duttle, Kai, and Keigo Inukai. 2015. Complexity aversion: Influences of cognitive abilities, culture and system of thought. Economic Bulletin 352: 846–55. [Google Scholar]
- Else-Quest, Nicole M., Janet Shibley Hyde, and Marcia C. Linn. 2010. Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 1361: 103–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Epstein, Seymour. 2003. Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology. Edited by T. Millon and M. J. Lerner. New Jersey: John Wiley y Sons, Inc., vol. 5, pp. 159–84. [Google Scholar]
- Erceg, Nikola, Zvonimir Galic, and Andreja Bubić. 2019. Who detects and why? Individual differences in abilities, knowledge and thinking dispositions among different types of problem solvers and their implications for the validity of reasoning tasks. PsyArXiv. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, Jonathan S. B., and Keith E. Stanovich. 2013. Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science 83: 223–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Evans, Jonathan. S. B., and P. C. Wason. 1976. Rationalization in a reasoning task. British Journal of Psychology 674: 479–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finucane, Melissa L., and Christina. M. Gullion. 2010. Developing a tool for measuring the decision-making competence of older adults. Psychology and Aging 252: 271–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fosgaard, Toke R., Lars G. Hansen, and Erik Wengström. 2019. Cooperation, framing, and political attitudes. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 158: 416–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frederick, Shane. 2005. Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19: 25–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gervais, Will M., Michiel van Elk, Dimitris Xygalatas, Ryan T. McKay, Mark Aveyard, Emma E. Buchtel, Ilan Dar-Nimrod, Eva Kundtová Klocová, Jonathan E. Ramsay, Tapani Riekki, and et al. 2018. Analytic atheism: A cross-culturally weak and fickle phenomenon? Judgment and Decision Making 133: 268–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grossman, Zachary, Joël van der Weele, and Ana Andrijevik. 2014. A Test of Dual-Process Reasoning in Charitable Giving (Working Paper). Santa Barbara: University of California Santa Bárbara. Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4tm617f7 (accessed on 7 July 2019).
- Guthrie, Chris, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, and Andrew J. Wistrich. 2007. Blinking on the bench: How judges decide cases. Cornell Law Review 931: 1–44. [Google Scholar]
- Hoppe, Eva I., and David J. Kusterer. 2011. Behavioral biases and cognitive reflection. Economics Letters 1102: 97–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hyde, Janet Shibley, Elizabeth Fennema, Marilyng Ryan, Laurie A. Frost, and Carolyn Hopp. 1990. Gender comparisons of mathematics attitudes and affect: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly 143: 299–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibanez, Marcela, Gerhard Riener, and Ashok Rai. 2013. Sorting through Affirmative Action: Two Field Experiments in Colombia (Working Paper Nº 150). Courant Research Centre: Poverty, Equity and Growth. Available online: https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/90590 (accessed on 10 May 2018).
- Kahan, Dan M. 2017. ‘Ordinary science intelligence’: A science-comprehension measure for study of risk and science communication, with notes on evolution and climate change. Journal of Risk Research 208: 995–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow. Barcelona: Debolsillo. [Google Scholar]
- Kahneman, Daniel, and Shane Frederick. 2002. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In Heuristics of Intuitive Judgment: Extensions and Applications. Edited by T. Gilovich, D. Griffin and D. Kahneman. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49–81. [Google Scholar]
- Kahneman, Daniel, and Shane Frederick. 2005. A model of heuristic judgment. In The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. Edited by K. J. Holyoak and R. G. Morrison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 267–93. [Google Scholar]
- Kiss, Hubert Janos, Ismael Rodriguez-Lara, and Alfonso Rosa-García. 2016. Think twice before running! Bank runs and cognitive abilities. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 64: 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koehler, Derek J., and Gordon Pennycook. 2019. How the public, and scientists, perceive advancement of knowledge from conflicting study results. Judgment and Decision Making 166: 671–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lado, Mario, Inmaculada Otero, and Jesús F. Salgado. 2021. Cognitive reflection, life satisfaction, emotional balance, and job performance. Psicothema 331: 118–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liberali, Jordana M., Valerie F. Reyna, Sarah Furlan, Lilian M. Stein, and Seth T. Pardo. 2012. Individual differences in numeracy and cognitive reflection, with implications for biases and fallacies in probability judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 254: 361–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindberg, Sara M., Janet Shibley Hyde, Jennifer L. Petersen, and Marcia C. Linn. 2010. New trends in gender and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 1366: 1123–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Logan, Gordon D. 1988. Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review 954: 492–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lohse, Johannes. 2016. Smart or selfish–when smart guys finish nice. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 64: 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lubian, Diego, and Anna Untertrifaller. 2013. Cognitive Ability, Stereotypes, and Gender Segregation in the Workplace (Working Paper No. 25/2013). University of Verona. Available online: http://dse.univr.it/workingpapers/wp2013n25.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2018).
- Mandel, David R., and Irina V. Kapler. 2018. Cognitive style and frame susceptibility in decision-making. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moritz, Brent, Enno Siemsen, and Mirko Kremer. 2014. Judgmental forecasting: Cognitive reflection and decision speed. Production and Operations Management 237: 1146–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morsanyi, Kinga, Chiara Busdraghi, and Caterina Primi. 2014. Mathematical anxiety is linked to reduced cognitive reflection: A potential road from discomfort in the mathematics classroom to susceptibility to biases. Behavioral and Brain Functions 101: 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Morsanyi, Kinga, Teresa McCormack, and Eileen O’Mahony. 2017. The link between deductive reasoning and mathematics. Thinking and Reasoning 242: 234–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muñoz-Murillo, Melisa, Pilar B. Álvarez-Franco, and Diego A. Restrepo-Tobón. 2020. The role of cognitive abilities on financial literacy: New experimental evidence. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 84: 101482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Narayanan, Arunachalam, and Brent B. Moritz. 2015. Decision making and cognition in multi-echelon supply chains: An experimental study. Production and Operations Management 248: 1216–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nieuwenstein, Mark, and Hedderik van Rijn. 2012. The unconscious thought advantage: Further replication failures from a search for confirmatory evidence. Judgment and Decision Making 76: 779–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obrecht, Natalie A., Gretchen B. Chapman, and Rochel Gelman. 2009. An encounter frequency account of how experience affects likelihood estimation. Memory and Cognition 375: 632–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Otero, Inmaculada. 2019. Construct and Criterion Validity of Cognitive Reflection. Doctoral dissertation, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. Available online: https://minerva.usc.es/xmlui/handle/10347/20521 (accessed on 9 December 2019).
- Otero, Inmaculada. 2020. Unpublished Raw Data on the Sex Differences in Cognitive Reflection. Santiago: University of Santiago de Compostela. [Google Scholar]
- Otero, Inmaculada, and Pamela Alonso. 2023. Cognitive reflection test: The effects of the items sequence on scores and response time. PLoS ONE 181: e0279982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Otero, Inmaculada, Jesús F. Salgado, and Silvia Moscoso. 2021. Criterion validity of cognitive reflection for predicting job performance and training proficiency: A Meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 668592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Otero, Inmaculada, Jesús F. Salgado, and Silvia Moscoso. 2022. Cognitive reflection, cognitive intelligence, and cognitive abilities: A meta-analysis. Intelligence 9: 101614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, Matthew J., Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M. Tetzlaff, Elie A. Akl, Sue E. Brennan, and et al. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372: n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patel, Niraj. 2017. The Cognitive Reflection Test: A Measure of Intuition/Reflection, Numeracy, and Insight Problem Solving, and the Implications for Understanding Real-World Judgments and Beliefs. Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA. Available online: https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/62365 (accessed on 17 February 2020).
- Pennycook, Gordon, and David G. Rand. 2019a. Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition 188: 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pennycook, Gordon, and David G. Rand. 2019b. Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. Journal of Personality 882: 185–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pennycook, Gordon, James Allan Cheyne, Derek J. Koehler, and Jonathan A. Fugelsang. 2016. Is the cognitive reflection test a measure of both reflection and intuition? Behavior Research Methods 481: 341–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pennycook, Gordon, James Allan Cheyne, Paul Seli, Derek J. Koehler, and Jonathan A. Fugelsang. 2012. Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition 1233: 335–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ponti, Giovanni, and Enrica Carbone. 2009. Positional learning with noise. Research in Economics 634: 225–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ponti, Giovanni, Ismael Rodriguez-Lara, and Daniela Di Cagno. 2014. Doing It Now or Later with Payoff Externalities: Experimental Evidence on Social Time Preferences (Working Paper No. 5). Available online: http://static.luiss.it/RePEc/pdf/cesare/1401.pdf (accessed on 21 February 2019).
- Poore, Joshua C., Clifton L. Forlines, Sarah M. Miller, John R. Regan, and John M. Irvine. 2014. Personality, cognitive style, motivation, and aptitude predict systematic trends in analytic forecasting behavior. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making 84: 374–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Primi, Caterine, Kinga Morsanyi, Francesca Chiesi, Maria Anna Donati, and Jayne Hamilton. 2015. The development and testing of a new version of the cognitive reflection test applying item response theory IRT. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 295: 453–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Primi, Caterine, Kinga Morsanyi, Maria Anna Donati, Silvia Galli, and Francesca Chiesi. 2017. Measuring probabilistic reasoning: The construction of a new scale applying item response theory. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 304: 933–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Primi, Caterine, Maria Anna Donati, Francesca Chiesi, and Kinga Morsanyi. 2018. Are there gender differences in cognitive reflection? Invariance and differences related to mathematics. Thinking and Reasoning 242: 258–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razmyar, Soroush, and Charlie L. Reeve. 2013. Individual differences in religiosity as a function of cognitive ability and cognitive style. Intelligence 415: 667–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ring, Patrick, Levent Neyse, Tamas David-Barett, and Ulrich Schmidt. 2016. Gender differences in performance predictions: Evidence from the cognitive reflection test. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Roth, Philip L., Huy Le, In-Shue Oh, Chad H. Van Iddekinge, Maury A. Buster, Steve B. Robbins, and Michael A. Campion. 2014. Differential validity for cognitive ability tests in employment and educational settings: Not much more than range restriction? Journal of Applied Psychology 99: 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Royzman, Edward B., Justin F. Landy, and Robert F. Leeman. 2015. Are thoughtful people more utilitarian? CRT as a unique predictor of moral minimalism in the dilemmatic context. Cognitive Science 392: 325–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sajid, Muhammad, and Matthew C. Li. 2019. The role of cognitive reflection in decision making: Evidence from Pakistani managers. Judgment and Decision Making 145: 591–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salgado, Jesús F., Inmaculada Otero, and Silvia Moscoso. 2019. Cognitive reflection and general mental ability as predictors of job performance. Sustainability 11: 6498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmidt, Frank L., and Huy Le. 2004. Software for the Hunter-Schmidt Meta-Analysis Methods. [Computer Software]. Iowa City: Department of Management and Organizations, University of Iowa. [Google Scholar]
- Schmidt, Frank L., and John. E. Hunter. 2015. Methods of Meta-Analysis, 3rd ed. Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage. [Google Scholar]
- Schulze, Christin, and Ben R. Newell. 2015. Compete, coordinate, and cooperate: How to exploit uncertain environments with social interaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1445: 967–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shenhav, Amitai, David G. Rand, and Joshua D. Greene. 2012. Divine intuition: Cognitive style influences belief in God. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1413: 423–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sinayev, Aleksandr, and Ellen Peters. 2015. Cognitive reflection vs. calculation in decision making. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sirota, Miroslav, and Marie Juanchich. 2011. Role of numeracy and cognitive reflection in bayesian reasoning with natural frequencies. Studia Psychologica 532: 151–61. [Google Scholar]
- Sirota, Miroslav, Lenka Kostovičová, Marie Juanchich, Christina Dewberry, and Amanda Claire Marshall. 2021. Measuring cognitive reflection without maths: Developing and validating the verbal cognitive reflection test. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 343: 322–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skagerlund, Kenny, Thérèse Lind, Camilla Strömbäck, Gustav Tinghög, and Daniel Västfjäll. 2018. Financial literacy and the role of numeracy–how individuals’ attitude and affinity with numbers influence financial literacy. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 74: 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sloman, Steven A. 1996. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 1191: 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, Eliot R., and Jamie DeCoster. 2000. Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review 42: 108–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Šrol, Jakub. 2018. Dissecting the expanded cognitive reflection test: An item response theory analysis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 307: 643–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stagnaro, Michael N., Gordon Pennycook, and David G. Rand. 2018. Performance on the cognitive reflection test is stable across time. Judgment and Decision Making 133: 260–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stagnaro, Michael N., Robert M. Ross, Gordon Pennycook, and David G. Rand. 2019. Cross-cultural support for a link between analytic thinking and disbelief in God: Evidence from India and the United Kingdom. Judgment and Decision Making 142: 179–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ståhl, Tomas, and Jan-Willem Van Prooijen. 2018. Epistemic rationality: Skepticism toward unfounded beliefs requires sufficient cognitive ability and motivation to be rational. Personality and Individual Differences 122: 155–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanovich, Keith E. 2009. What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought. New Haven: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Stieger, Stefan, and Ulf-Dietrich Reips. 2016. A limitation of the cognitive reflection test: Familiarity. PeerJ 4: e2395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Svenson, Ola, Nichel Gonzalez, and Gabriella Eriksson. 2018. Different heuristics and same bias: A spectral analysis of biased judgments and individual decision rules. Judgment and Decision Making 135: 401–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szaszi, Barnabas, Aba Szollosi, Bence Palfi, and Balazs Aczel. 2017. The cognitive reflection test revisited: Exploring the ways individuals solve the test. Thinking & Reasoning 23: 207–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teigen, Karl Halvor, Erik Løhre, and Sigrid Møyner Hohle. 2018. The boundary effect: Perceived post hoc accuracy of prediction intervals. Judgment and Decision Making 134: 309–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomson, Keela S., and Daniel M. Oppenheimer. 2016. Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgment and Decision Making 111: 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toplak, Maggie E., Richard F. West, and Keith E. Stanovich. 2011. The cognitive reflection test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Memory and Cognition 397: 1275–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Toplak, Maggie E., Richard F. West, and Keith E. Stanovich. 2014. Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the cognitive reflection test. Thinking and Reasoning 202: 147–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toplak, Maggie E., Richard F. West, and Keith E. Stanovich. 2017. Real-world correlates of performance on heuristics and biases tasks in a community sample. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 302: 541–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ventis, Larry. 2015. Thinking fast and slow in the experience of humor. International Journal of Humor Researh 283: 351–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wason, Peter C., and Jonathan S. B. Evans. 1975. Dual processes in reasoning? Cognition 32: 141–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weller, Joshua A., Nathan F. Dieckmann, Martin Tusler, C. K. Mertz, William J. Burns, and Ellen Peters. 2013. Development and testing of an abbreviated numeracy scale: A Rasch analysis approach. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 26: 198–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Welsh, Matthew, Nicholas Burns, and Paul Delfabbro. 2013. The Cognitive Reflection Test: How much more than numerical ability? In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Edited by M. Knauff, N. Sebanz, M. Pauen and I. Wachsmuth. London: Psychology Press, vol. 35, pp. 1587–92. Available online: https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt68n012fh/qt68n012fh.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2019).
- Whitener, Ellen M. 1990. Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility intervals in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 75: 315–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willard, Aiyana K., and Ara Norenzayan. 2017. “Spiritual but not religious”: Cognition, schizotypy, and conversion in alternative beliefs. Cognition 165: 137–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Woike, Jan K. 2019. Upon repeated reflection: Consequences of frequent exposure to the cognitive reflection test for Mechanical Turk participants. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 2646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yilmaz, Onurcan, and S. Adil Saribay. 2016. An attempt to clarify the link between cognitive style and political ideology: A non-western replication and extension. Judgment and Decision Making 113: 287–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yilmaz, Onurcan, and S. Adil Saribay. 2017. The relationship between cognitive style and political orientation depends on the measures used. Judgment and Decision Making 122: 140–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yilmaz, Onurcan, S. Adil Saribay, and Ravi Iyer. 2020. Are neo-liberals more intuitive? Undetected libertarians confound the relation between analytic cognitive style and economic conservatism. Current Psychology 391: 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, John W. 2001. Differential Validity, Differential Prediction, and College Admission Testing: A Comprehensive Review and Analysis. Research Report No. 2001-6. College Entrance Examination Board. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED562661 (accessed on 10 December 2023).
- Zhang, Don C., Scott Highhouse, and Thaddeus B. Rada. 2016. Explaining sex differences on the Cognitive Reflection Test. Personality and Individual Differences 101: 425–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
K | SD | Min.–Max. | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Numerical-CR tests | 53 | 0.70 | 0.088 | 0.43–0.85 |
CRT-3 | 46 | 0.68 | 0.085 | 0.43–0.80 |
Other numerical-CR tests | 13 | 0.75 | 0.064 | 0.65–0.85 |
Verbal-CR tests | 15 | 0.60 | 0.089 | 0.45–0.83 |
Meta-Analysis of Observed Effect Size | Meta-Analysis of Corrected Effect Size | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
K | N | dw | SDd | δ | SDδ | %VE | 90% CV | 95% CIδ | ||
Numerical-CR tests | 112 | 66,109 | 0.39 | 0.143 | 0.47 | 0.137 | 36.91 | 0.29 | 0.44/0.50 | |
CRT-3 | 89 | 59,822 | 0.39 | 0.142 | 0.47 | 0.142 | 32.91 | 0.29 | 0.43/0.50 | |
Other numerical CR tests | 31 | 11,511 | 0.45 | 0.138 | 0.52 | 0.100 | 60.37 | 0.40 | 0.47/0.58 | |
Verbal-CR tests | 25 | 9916 | 0.10 | 0.130 | 0.13 | 0.106 | 60.28 | −0.01 | 0.06/0.19 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Otero, I.; Martínez, A.; Cuadrado, D.; Lado, M.; Moscoso, S.; Salgado, J.F. Sex Differences in Cognitive Reflection: A Meta-Analysis. J. Intell. 2024, 12, 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence12040039
Otero I, Martínez A, Cuadrado D, Lado M, Moscoso S, Salgado JF. Sex Differences in Cognitive Reflection: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Intelligence. 2024; 12(4):39. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence12040039
Chicago/Turabian StyleOtero, Inmaculada, Alexandra Martínez, Dámaris Cuadrado, Mario Lado, Silvia Moscoso, and Jesús F. Salgado. 2024. "Sex Differences in Cognitive Reflection: A Meta-Analysis" Journal of Intelligence 12, no. 4: 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence12040039