Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test
Abstract
The Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT; Frederick, 2005) is designed to measure the tendency to override a prepotent response alternative that is incorrect and to engage in further reflection that leads to the correct response. It is a prime measure of the miserly information processing posited by most dual process theories. The original three-item test may be becoming known to potential participants, however. We examined a four-item version that could serve as a substitute for the original. Our data show that it displays a .58 correlation with the original version and that it has very similar relationships with cognitive ability, various thinking dispositions, and with several other rational thinking tasks. Combining the two versions into a seven-item test resulted in a measure of miserly processing with substantial reliability (.72). The seven-item version was a strong independent predictor of performance on rational thinking tasks after the variance accounted for by cognitive ability and thinking dispositions had been partialled out.
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
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.
Cites
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810 · see citing works
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 17,604 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Self-citationCacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197 · Cited by 2,517 · cited 3× · see citing works
“This 18-item scale assesses the motive to engage in effortful cognitive activities (Cacioppo et al., 1996). Sample items include: “The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me”, and “I would prefer a task that is intellectual, difficult, and important to one that is somewhat important but does not require much…”
BackgroundInfluentialThe consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior.
Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.742 · Cited by 1,782 · see citing works
Rationality and the Reflective Mind
Stanovich, K. (2010) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341140.001.0001 · Cited by 1,041 · see citing works
Self-citationIndividual differences in adult decision-making competence.
Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.938 · Cited by 906 · see citing works
Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Seli, P., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2012) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.003 · Cited by 544 · see citing works
Probability matching and strategy availability
J. Koehler, D., & James, G. (2010) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/mc.38.6.667 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/jopy.12476 · Cited by 879 · see citing works
On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit
Pennycook, G., Allan Cheyne, J., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500006999 · Cited by 536 · see citing works
Baron, J., Scott, S., Fincher, K., & Emlen Metz, S. (2015) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.09.003 · Cited by 346 · see citing works
The Very Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition: Developing a Six-Item Version
Lins de Holanda Coelho, G., H. P. Hanel, P., & J. Wolf, L. (2020) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191118793208 · Cited by 358 · see citing works
Miserliness in human cognition: the interaction of detection, override and mindware
Stanovich, K. E. (2018) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2018.1459314 · Cited by 279 · see citing works
Self-citationPennycook, G., Ross, R. M., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153039 · Cited by 232 · see citing works
Humans versus AI: whether and why we prefer human-created compared to AI-created artwork
Bellaiche, L., Shahi, R., Turpin, M. H., Ragnhildstveit, A., Sprockett, S., Barr, N., Christensen, A., & Seli, P. (2023) · Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-023-00499-6 · Cited by 233 · see citing works
“Before rating the images, participants were asked to complete the 7-item cognitive reflection test (CRT; Frederick, 2005; Toplak et al., 2014).”
MethodSelf-talk: Review and sport-specific model.
Van Raalte, J. L., Vincent, A., & Brewer, B. W. (2016) · Psychology of Sport and Exercise · doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.08.004 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
Moral foundations twitter corpus: a collection of 35k tweets annotated for moral sentiment
Hoover, J., Portillo-Wightman, G., Yeh, L., Havaldar, S., Davani, A. M., Lin, Y., Kennedy, B., Atari, M., Kamel, Z., Mendlen, M., et al. (2020) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550619876629 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
Danry, V., Pataranutaporn, P., Mao, Y., & Maes, P. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3580672 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Smith, R., Lane, R. D., Parr, T., & Friston, K. J. (2019) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.09.002 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Byrd, N., & Conway, P. (2019) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.007 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Applying novel technologies and methods to inform the ontology of self-regulation
Eisenberg, I. W., Bissett, P. G., Canning, J. R., Dallery, J., Enkavi, A. Z., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., Gonzalez, O., Green, A. I., Greene, M. A., Kiernan, M., et al. (2018) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2017.09.014 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Pictures and repeated exposure increase perceived accuracy of news headlines
Smelter, T. J., & Calvillo, D. P. (2020) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3684 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Studying and improving reasoning in humans and machines
Yax, N., Anlló, H., & Palminteri, S. (2024) · Communications Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44271-024-00091-8 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Urban, M., Brom, C., Lukavský, J., Děchtěrenko, F., Hein, V., Svacha, F., Kmoníčková, P., & Urban, K. (2025) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13591 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Danry, V., Pataranutaporn, P., Groh, M., & Epstein, Z. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713408 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Reynolds, C. J., Makhanova, A., Ng, B. K. L., & Conway, P. (2020) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2019.109632 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
The Effect of Mindfulness on Cognitive Reflection and Reasoning
Farrar, S. T., Yarrow, K., & Tapper, K. (2020) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-020-01429-z · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Schincariol, A., Otgaar, H., Greene, C. M., Murphy, G., Riesthuis, P., Mangiulli, I., & Battista, F. (2024) · Memory, Mind & Media · doi:10.1017/mem.2024.14 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E.
- Affiliations
- York University (CA)
- James Madison University (US)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Toplak, Maggie E.
- Venue
- Thinking & Reasoning
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-10-28
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 147-168
- ISSN
- 1354-6783 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0708
- OpenAlex
- W1995081088
- Cited by
- 864
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 54 · 2025: 87 · 2024: 90 · 2023: 92 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 107 · 2020: 87 · 2019: 81 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 13
- FWCI
- 20.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Thinking & Reasoning (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Keywords
- Cognitive Reflection Test, dual-process theory, rational thinking, cognitive ability, thinking dispositions, test reliability, test version comparison, prepotent response inhibition, metacognition
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
