| Summary: | The aim of the
study was to test convergent/discriminant validity of two measures of cognitive
reflection, cognitive reflection test (CRT) and belief bias syllogisms (BBS)
and to investigate whether their distinctive characteristic of luring
participants into giving wrong intuitive responses explains their relationships
with various abilities and disposition measures. Our results show that the same
traits largely account for performance on both non-lure task, the Berlin
Numeracy Test (BNT), and CRT and explain their correlations with other
variables. These results also imply that the predictive validity of CRT for
wide range of outcomes does not stem from lures. Regarding the BBS, we found
that its correlations with other measures were substantially diminished once we
accounted for the effects of BNT. This also implies that the lures are not the
reason for the correlation between BBS and these measure. We conclude that the
lures are not the reason why cognitive reflection tasks correlate with
different outcomes. Our results call into question an original definition of
CRT as a measure of ability or disposition to resist reporting first response
that comes to mind, as well as the validity of results of studies showing
“incremental validity” of CRT over numeracy.
|
|---|
