Cited by 170Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentCognitive Abilities and Testing

Rational thinking and cognitive sophistication: Development, cognitive abilities, and thinking dispositions.

Toplak, Maggie E., West, Richard F., Stanovich, Keith E.·2014·Developmental Psychology

Abstract

We studied developmental trends in 5 important reasoning tasks that are critical components of the operational definition of rational thinking. The tasks measured denominator neglect, belief bias, base rate sensitivity, resistance to framing, and the tendency toward otherside thinking. In addition to age, we examined 2 other individual difference domains that index cognitive sophistication: cognitive ability (intelligence and executive functioning) and thinking dispositions (actively open-minded thinking, superstitious thinking, and need for cognition). All 5 reasoning domains were consistently related to cognitive sophistication regardless of how it was indexed (age, cognitive ability, thinking dispositions). The implications of these findings for taxonomies of developmental trends in rational thinking tasks are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0034910

Cites

102 of 102 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 104 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E.
Affiliations
  • York University (CA)
  • James Madison University (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
Developmental Psychology
Published
2014
Volume
50
Issue
4
Pages
1037-1048
ISSN
  • 0012-1649 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-0599
OpenAlex
W2116272087
Cited by
170
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7
FWCI
5.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Developmental Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
  • John Templeton Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
rational thinking, cognitive sophistication, cognitive development, reasoning, belief bias, framing effects, intelligence, executive function, open-mindedness, superstition, need for cognition, individual differences
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Aptitude, Child, Child Development, Cognition, Female, Humans, Intelligence, Intelligence Tests, Male, Parents, Personality, Psychological Tests, Regression Analysis, Superstitions, Thinking, Executive Function

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review