The DOI matches its Crossref record; 102 of the 104 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rational thinking and cognitive sophistication: Development, cognitive abilities, and thinking dispositions.
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(2011) · Cited by 14,317
VALIDITY OF THE TRAIL MAKING TEST AS AN INDICATOR OF ORGANIC BRAIN DAMAGE
Reitan, R. M. (1958) · Perceptual and Motor Skills · doi:10.2466/pms.1958.8.3.271 · Cited by 8,167
Individual differences in working memory and reading
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90312-6 · Cited by 6,336
On the psychology of prediction.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0034747 · Cited by 6,202 · cited 1×
“In the present study, we examined denominator neglect (or ratio bias; see Reyna & Brainerd, 2008), belief bias in syllogistic reasoning (Evans, Barston, & Pollard, 1983; Markovits & Nantel, 1989), and base rate sensitivity (Bar-Hillel, 1980, 1990; Kahneman & Tversky, 1973).”
Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence
Dumont, R., Willis, J. O., Veizel, K., & Zibulsky, J. (2014) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118660584.ese2519 · Cited by 5,546
A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality.
Kahneman, D. (2003) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.58.9.697 · Cited by 5,540
Kahneman, D. J., & Tversky, A. (2013) · World Scientific handbook in financial economic series · doi:10.1142/9789814417358_0016 · Cited by 5,379
Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629 · Cited by 5,137
Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612460685 · Cited by 4,271
Self-citationMiyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721411429458 · Cited by 3,944
Flagged first, then by citations
2 of the 104 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test
Thomson, K. S., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2016) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500007622 · Cited by 612
Critical Thinking as Discourse
Kuhn, D. (2019) · Human Development · doi:10.1159/000500171 · Cited by 265
Actively open-minded thinking in politics
Baron, J. (2018) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.004 · Cited by 199
Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: Numeracy and metacognition
Ghazal, S., Cokely, E. T., & García‐Retamero, R. (2014) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500004952 · Cited by 173
The Bias That Divides Us: The Science and Politics of Myside Thinking
Stanovich, K. E. (2021) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/13367.001.0001 · Cited by 152
Self-citation
Metadata
- 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
