The Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) is a widely used measure of adults’ propensity to engage in reflective analytic thought. The CRT is strongly predictive of many diverse psychological factors but unsuitable for use with developmental samples. Here, we examined a children’s CRT, the CRT–Developmental (CRT–D), and investigated its predictive utility in the domains of science and mathematics. School-age children (N = 152) completed the CRT–D, measures of executive functioning, measures of rational thinking, and measures of vitalist-biology and mathematical-equivalence concepts. CRT–D performance predicted conceptual understanding in both domains after we adjusted for children’s age, executive functioning, and rational thinking. These findings suggest that cognitive reflection supports conceptual knowledge in early science and mathematics and, moreover, demonstrate the theoretical and practical importance of children’s cognitive reflection. The CRT–D will allow researchers to investigate the development, malleability, and consequences of children’s cognitive reflection.
AllowayT. P.GathercoleS. E.KirkwoodH.ElliottJ. (2009). The cognitive and behavioral characteristics of children with low working memory. Child Development, 80, 606–621. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01282.x
2.
BagoB.De NeysW. (2019). The Smart System 1: Evidence for the intuitive nature of correct responding on the bat-and-ball problem. Thinking & Reasoning, 25, 257–299.
3.
BascandzievI.TardiffN.ZaitchikD.CareyS. (2018). The role of domain-general cognitive resources in children’s construction of a vitalist theory of biology. Cognitive Psychology, 104, 1–28. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2018.03.002
4.
CorgnetB.EspínA. M.Hernán-GonzálezR. (2015). The cognitive basis of social behavior: Cognitive reflection overrides antisocial but not always prosocial motives. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, Article 287. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00287
5.
CraggL.GilmoreC. (2014). Skills underlying mathematics: The role of executive function in the development of mathematics proficiency. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 3, 63–68. doi:10.1016/j.tine.2013.12.001
6.
De NeysW.PennycookG. (2019). Logic, fast and slow: Advances in dual-process theorizing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28, 503–509.
7.
DonH. J.GoldwaterM. B.OttoA. R.LiveseyE. J. (2016). Rule abstraction, model-based choice, and cognitive reflection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1615–1623. doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1012-y
8.
FrederickS. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42. doi:10.1257/089533005775196732
9.
GervaisW. M. (2015). Override the controversy: Analytic thinking predicts endorsement of evolution. Cognition, 142, 312–321. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.011
10.
Gómez-ChacónI. M.García-MadrugaJ. A.VilaJ. Ó.ElosúaM. R.RodríguezR. (2014). The dual processes hypothesis in mathematics performance: Beliefs, cognitive reflection, working memory and reasoning. Learning and Individual Differences, 29, 67–73.
11.
HammondM. D.CimpianA. (2017). Investigating the cognitive structure of stereotypes: Generic beliefs about groups predict social judgments better than statistical beliefs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 607–614. doi:10.1037/xge0000297
12.
HaranU.RitovI.MellersB. A. (2013). The role of actively open-minded thinking in information acquisition, accuracy, and calibration. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 188–201.
13.
HornburgC. B.WangL.McNeilN. (2018). Comparing meta-analysis and individual person data analysis using raw data on children’s understanding of equivalence. Child Development, 89, 1983–1995. doi:10.1111/cdev.13058
14.
InagakiK.HatanoG. (2002). Young children’s naive thinking about the biological world. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
15.
KellerU.StrobelA.WollschlägerR.GreiffS.MartinR.VainikainenM.-P.PreckelF. (2019). A Need for Cognition scale for children and adolescents: Structural analysis and measurement invariance. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35, 137–149. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000370
16.
KnuthE. J.StephensA. C.McNeilN. M.AlibaliM. W. (2006). Does understanding the equal sign matter? Evidence from solving equations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 297–312.
17.
McElreathR. (2016). Statistical rethinking: A Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
18.
McNeilN. M.AlibaliM. W. (2005). Why won’t you change your mind? Knowledge of operational patterns hinders learning and performance on equations. Child Development, 76, 883–899. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00884.x
19.
McNeilN. M.HornburgC. B.DevlinB. L.CarrazzaC.McKeeverM. O. (2019). Consequences of individual differences in children’s formal understanding of mathematical equivalence. Child Development, 90, 940–956. doi:10.1111/cdev.12948
20.
MunakataY.SnyderH. R.ChathamC. H. (2012). Developing cognitive control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 71–77. doi:10.1177/0963721412436807
21.
PennycookG.FugelsangJ. A.KoehlerD. J. (2015). Everyday consequences of analytic thinking. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 425–432. doi:10.1177/0963721415604610
22.
PennycookG.RandD. G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
23.
PiironenJ.VehtariA. (2017). Comparison of Bayesian predictive methods for model selection. Statistics and Computing, 27, 711–735. doi:10.1007/s11222-016-9649-y
24.
PrimiC.MorsanyiK.ChiesiF.DonatiM. A.HamiltonJ. (2016). The development and testing of a new version of the Cognitive Reflection Test applying item response theory (IRT). Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29, 453–469. doi:10.1002/bdm.1883
25.
RoyzmanE. B.LandyJ. F.LeemanR. F. (2015). Are thoughtful people more utilitarian? CRT as a unique predictor of moral minimalism in the dilemmatic context. Cognitive Science, 39, 325–352. doi:10.1111/cogs.12136
26.
ShtulmanA.McCallumK. (2014). Cognitive reflection predicts science understanding. In BelloP.GuariniM.McShaneM.ScassellatiB. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2937–2942). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
27.
SinatraG. M.SoutherlandS. A.McConaughyF.DemastesJ. W. (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 510–528. doi:10.1002/tea.10087
28.
SlaughterV.LyonsM. (2003). Learning about life and death in early childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 1–30. doi:10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00504-2
29.
StanovichK. E. (2018). Miserliness in human cognition: The interaction of detection, override and mindware. Thinking & Reasoning, 24, 423–444.
30.
StanovichK. E.WestR. F.ToplakM. E. (2016). The rationality quotient: Toward a test of rational thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31.
StuppleE. J.PitchfordM.BallL. J.HuntT. E.SteelR. (2017). Slower is not always better: Response-time evidence clarifies the limited role of miserly information processing in the Cognitive Reflection Test. PLOS ONE, 12(11), Article e0186404. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0186404
32.
SzasziB.SzollosiA.PalfiB.AczelB. (2017). The Cognitive Reflection Test revisited: Exploring the ways individuals solve the test. Thinking & Reasoning, 23, 207–234.
33.
ThomsonK. S.OppenheimerD. M. (2016). Investigating an alternate form of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Judgment and Decision Making, 11, 99–113.
34.
ToplakM. E.WestR. F.StanovichK. E. (2011). The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1275–1289. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1
35.
ToplakM. E.WestR. F.StanovichK. E. (2014). Rational thinking and cognitive sophistication: Development, cognitive abilities, and thinking dispositions. Developmental Psychology, 50, 1037–1048. doi:10.1037/a0034910
36.
TraversE.RolisonJ. J.FeeneyA. (2016). The time course of conflict on the Cognitive Reflection Test. Cognition, 150, 109–118. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2016.01.015
37.
VehtariA.GelmanA.GabryJ. (2017). Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Statistics and Computing, 27, 1413–1432. doi:10.1007/s11222-016-9696-4
38.
VosniadouS.PnevmatikosD.MakrisN.LepeniotiD.EikospentakiK.ChountalaA.KyrianakisG. (2018). The recruitment of shifting and inhibition in on-line science and mathematics tasks. Cognitive Science, 42, 1860–1886. doi:10.1111/cogs.12624
39.
WongT. T.-Y. (2018). Is conditional reasoning related to mathematical problem solving?Developmental Science, 21, Article e12644. doi:10.1111/desc.12644
40.
YoungA. G.PowersA.PilgrimL.ShtulmanA. (2018). Developing a Cognitive Reflection Test for school-age children. In RogersT. T.RauM.ZhuX.KalishC. W. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1232–1237). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
41.
YoungA. G.ShtulmanA. (2020). How children’s cognitive reflection shapes their science understanding. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1247. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01247
42.
ZaitchikD.IqbalY.CareyS. (2014). The effect of executive function on biological reasoning in young children: An individual differences study. Child Development, 85, 160–175. doi:10.1111/cdev.12145
43.
ZelazoP. D.AndersonJ. E.RichlerJ.Wallner-AllenK.BeaumontJ. L.WeintraubS. (2013). II. NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (CB): Measuring executive function and attention. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 78, 16–33. doi:10.1111/mono.12032
44.
ZinbargR. E.RevelleW.YovelI.LiW. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, McDonald’s ωH: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70, 123–133.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
