Sinayev and Peters (2015; hereafter S&P) present two competing hypotheses to explain performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT).They dub the first the "Cognitive Reflection Hypothesis" and attribute it to other researchers: "Each of these researchers assumes that differences in CRT performance indicated differences in the ability to detect and correct incorrect intuitions. . ." and ". . .implicitly assume that numerical ability is an irrelevant detail when it comes to solving CRT and related problems" (p.2).They contrast this with their "Numeracy Hypothesis" which states that "the CRT is primarily a measure of numeric ability" (p.3).S&P report two studies whose results, they argue, favor the Numeracy Hypothesis over the Cognitive Reflection Hypothesis.They conclude that numeric ability is "the key mechanism" that explains the association between CRT performance and decision making (p.1), although they also state that the ability to detect and correction intuitions (apart from numeracy) plays a role in CRT performance.Both of the hypotheses presented by S&P emphasize the role of cognitive ability in CRT performance.In this commentary we introduce an alternative hypothesis that was not discussed by S&P; namely, that the propensity or disposition to think analytically plays an important role in CRT performance (Pennycook et al., 2015b).We discuss recent empirical evidence that supports the claim that the CRT is more than just a measure of numeracy or, more generally, cognitive ability. DISTINGUISHING COGNITIVE ABILITY AND ANALYTIC COGNITIVE STYLEDual process theorists often distinguish between disposition and ability as factors that determine good reasoning (e.g., Stanovich and West, 2000;Stanovich, 2009;Evans and Stanovich, 2013).The logic is as follows: If someone does not have the disposition or willingness to think analytically, they will not fully exercise their cognitive ability and will not do as well on the problem.Naturally, the converse is also true: If someone does not have sufficient cognitive ability, it will not matter how much time and effort they are willing to spend thinking about the problem.This distinction has been applied to CRT performance.For example, according to Toplak et al. (2014): "the CRT is a measure of the tendency toward the class of reasoning error that derives from miserly processing.This may be why the predictive power of the CRT is in part separable from cognitive ability.The latter measures computational power that is available to the individual, but not necessarily the depth of processing that is typically used in most situations" (p.165).That
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 92 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.