The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making
Abstract
This paper introduces a three-item “Cognitive Reflection Test” (CRT) as a simple measure of one type of cognitive ability—the ability or disposition to reflect on a question and resist reporting the first response that comes to mind. The author will show that CRT scores are predictive of the types of choices that feature prominently in tests of decision-making theories, like expected utility theory and prospect theory. Indeed, the relation is sometimes so strong that the preferences themselves effectively function as expressions of cognitive ability—an empirical fact begging for a theoretical explanation. The author examines the relation between CRT scores and two important decision-making characteristics: time preference and risk preference. The CRT scores are then compared with other measures of cognitive ability or cognitive “style.” The CRT scores exhibit considerable difference between men and women and the article explores how this relates to sex differences in time and risk preferences. The final section addresses the interpretation of correlations between cognitive abilities and decision-making characteristics.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“we find the participants’ accuracy increased by 2.1 percentage points (z(16002) = 4.6, β = 2.1, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [1.2, 3.0]) for each of the three Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT)73 questions they answered correctly.”
From Human detection of political speech deepfakes across transcripts, audio, and video (2024) · cites this paper as [73]
In the citing paper
“To assess metacognitive bias, the present study employed the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT; Frederick, 2005), a measure of reflective reasoning and the ability to override intuitive, automatic responses.”
From “ ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.” Epistemic beliefs and metacognitive accuracy in students' integration of ChatGPT content into academic writing (2025) · cites this paper as Frederick, 2005
In the citing paper
“we also included the following measures as covariates, which research has shown are associated with susceptibility to misinformation:”
From Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media (2022) · cites this paper as [38]
In the citing paper
“Frederick (2005) found that large numbers of highly select university students at MIT, Princeton, and Harvard were cognitive misers; they responded that the cost was 10 cents, rather than the correct answer... 5 cents.”
From The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks (2011) · cites this paper as Frederick, 2005
In the citing paper
“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.”
From The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks (2011) · cites this paper as Frederick, 2005
In the citing paper
“Frederick (2005) observed that with as few as three items, his CRT could predict performance on measures of temporal discounting, the tendency to choose high-expected-value gambles, and framing effects.”
From The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks (2011) · cites this paper as Frederick, 2005
In the citing paper
“Frederick (2005) reported a correlation of .44 between CRT performance and SAT total scores, as well as a .43correlation between CRT scores and performance on the Wonderlic IQ test.”
From The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks (2011) · cites this paper as Frederick, 2005
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk
Kahneman, D. J., & Tversky, A. (1988) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609220.014 · Cited by 32,720
Anderson, N. H. (2001) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410600004-24 · Cited by 6,939
Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/002205102320161311 · Cited by 6,106
Self-citation(1999) · Cited by 6,104
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 · Cited by 5,359
Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00003435 · Cited by 4,481
The empirical case for two systems of reasoning.
Sloman, S. A. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3 · Cited by 3,942
Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis
Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367 · Cited by 3,723
Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.004 · Cited by 3,476
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Becker Gary, 1977, American Economic Review., 67, 76
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree.
Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0016755 · Cited by 2,443
The trouble with overconfidence.
Moore, D. A., & Healy, P. J. (2008) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.115.2.502 · Cited by 2,358
Data collection in a flat world: the strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.1753 · Cited by 2,242
Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2015) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2247 · Cited by 2,056
Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G. (2020) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797620939054 · Cited by 1,715
Spontaneous giving and calculated greed
Rand, D. G., Greene, J. D., & Nowak, M. A. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11467 · Cited by 1,334
Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection
Kahan, D. M. (2013) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500005271 · Cited by 1,302
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007 · Cited by 1,360
A literature review of the anchoring effect
Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (2011) · The Journal of Socio-Economics · doi:10.1016/j.socec.2010.10.008 · Cited by 1,179
Conducting Clinical Research Using Crowdsourced Convenience Samples
Chandler, J., & Shapiro, D. (2016) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093623 · Cited by 1,072
The economics, technology, and neuroscience of human capability formation.
Heckman, J. J. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0701362104 · Cited by 1,042
The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2011) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1 · Cited by 1,047
Many Labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings
Klein, R. A., Vianello, M., Hasselman, F., Adams, B. G., Adams, R. B., Alper, S., Aveyard, M., Axt, J. R., Babalola, M. T., Bahník, Š., et al. (2018) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2515245918810225 · Cited by 944
Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1806781116 · Cited by 947
Chandler, J., Mueller, P., & Paolacci, G. (2014) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7 · Cited by 950
Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning.
Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569 · Cited by 844
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/jopy.12476 · Cited by 879
Mindful Economics: The Production, Consumption, and Value of Beliefs
Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2016) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.30.3.141 · Cited by 817
Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation
Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2019) · Palgrave Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-019-0279-9 · Cited by 708
Online panels in social science research: Expanding sampling methods beyond Mechanical Turk
Chandler, J., Rosenzweig, C., Moss, A. J., Robinson, J., & Litman, L. (2019) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-019-01273-7 · Cited by 668
Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election
Guess, A. M., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0833-x · Cited by 587
A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory
Reyna, V. F. (2008) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x08327066 · Cited by 602
Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines.
Bago, B., Rand, D. G., & Pennycook, G. (2020) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000729 · Cited by 593
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
Divine intuition: Cognitive style influences belief in God.
Shenhav, A., Rand, D. G., & Greene, J. D. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0025391 · Cited by 557
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
Metrics for explainable AI: challenges and prospects
Hoffman, R. R., Mueller, S. T., Klein, G., & Litman, J. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1812.04608 · Cited by 518
Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3
Binz, M., & Schulz, E. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2218523120 · Cited by 559
Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases
Oechssler, J., Roider, A., & Schmitz, P. W. (2009) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2009.04.018 · Cited by 491
Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media
Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S., Goldberg, B., Rathje, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abo6254 · Cited by 472
Reliance on emotion promotes belief in fake news
Martel, C., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020) · Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-020-00252-3 · Cited by 470
Shamosh, N. A., DeYoung, C. G., Green, A. E., Reis, D. L., Johnson, M. R., Conway, A. R. A., Engle, R. W., Braver, T. S., & Gray, J. R. (2008) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02175.x · Cited by 452
Cokely, E. T., & Kelley, C. M. (2009) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s193029750000067x · Cited by 427
Confirmation bias, ingroup bias, and negativity bias in selective exposure to political information
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Mothes, C., & Polavin, N. (2020) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650217719596 · Cited by 391
Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/uhbk9 · Cited by 390
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
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
The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks
Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1547 · Cited by 352
Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study
Kahan, D. M. (2012) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2182588 · Cited by 331
Bronstein, M. V., Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Rand, D. G., & Cannon, T. D. (2019) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.09.005 · Cited by 324
The Science of Wisdom in a Polarized World: Knowns and Unknowns
Grossmann, I., Weststrate, N. M., Ardelt, M., Brienza, J. P., Dong, M., Ferrari, M., Fournier, M. A., Hu, C. S., Nusbaum, H. C., & Vervaeke, J. (2020) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2020.1750917 · Cited by 330
The brain in your pocket: Evidence that Smartphones are used to supplant thinking
Barr, N., Pennycook, G., Stolz, J. A., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.029 · Cited by 327
Long-term effectiveness of inoculation against misinformation: Three longitudinal experiments.
Maertens, R., Roozenbeek, J., Basol, M., & van der Linden, S. (2021) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/xap0000315 · Cited by 321
The effect of cognitive load on economic decision making: A survey and new experiments
Deck, C., & Jahedi, S. (2015) · European Economic Review · doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.05.004 · Cited by 304
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
Choi, S., Kariv, S., Müller, W., & Silverman, D. (2014) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.104.6.1518 · Cited by 277
Hoffman, R. R., Mueller, S. T., Klein, G., & Litman, J. (2023) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2023.1096257 · Cited by 272
THE ROLE OF NONCOGNITIVE SKILLS IN EXPLAINING COGNITIVE TEST SCORES
BORGHANS, L., MEIJERS, H., & TER WEEL, B. (2008) · Economic Inquiry · doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.2007.00073.x · Cited by 261
Frames and brains: elicitation and control of response tendencies
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2007) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.007 · Cited by 260
Self-citationPennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-30073-5 · Cited by 270
Pennycook, G., Ross, R. M., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153039 · Cited by 232
Hagendorff, T., Fabi, S., & Kosinski, M. (2023) · Nature Computational Science · doi:10.1038/s43588-023-00527-x · Cited by 243
Risen, J. L. (2016) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000017 · Cited by 221
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
Political Psychology in the Digital (mis)Information age: A Model of News Belief and Sharing
Van Bavel, J. J., Harris, E. A., Pärnamets, P., Rathje, S., Doell, K. C., & Tucker, J. A. (2021) · Social Issues and Policy Review · doi:10.1111/sipr.12077 · Cited by 213
Developing a tool for measuring the decision-making competence of older adults.
Finucane, M. L., & Gullion, C. M. (2010) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/a0019106 · Cited by 202
Scaling up fact-checking using the wisdom of crowds
Allen, J., Arechar, A. A., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abf4393 · Cited by 234
Alper, S., Bayrak, F., & Yilmaz, O. (2021) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-020-00903-0 · Cited by 192
The role of analytic thinking in moral judgements and values
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2014) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2013.865000 · Cited by 170
Correlations of cognitive reflection with judgments and choices
Campitelli, G., & Labollita, M. (2010) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500001066 · Cited by 166
Do Portfolio Distortions Reflect Superior Information or Psychological Biases?
Korniotis, G. M., & Kumar, A. (2013) · Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis · doi:10.1017/s0022109012000610 · Cited by 166
Religiosity, political orientation, and consequentialist moral thinking
Piazza, J., & Sousa, P. (2014) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550613492826 · Cited by 160
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
The diminishing criterion model for metacognitive regulation of time investment.
Ackerman, R. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0035098 · Cited by 152
Sound credit scores and financial decisions despite cognitive aging
Li, Y., Gao, J., Enkavi, A. Z., Zaval, L., Weber, E. U., & Johnson, E. J. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1413570112 · Cited by 142
Sleep deprivation and false confessions
Frenda, S. J., Berkowitz, S. R., Loftus, E. F., & Fenn, K. M. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1521518113 · Cited by 138
Brennan, M., Puri, S., Ozrazgat-Baslanti, T., Feng, Z., Ruppert, M., Hashemighouchani, H., Momcilovic, P., Li, X., Wang, D. Z., & Bihorac, A. (2019) · Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.surg.2019.01.002 · Cited by 131
Reasoning supports utilitarian resolutions to moral dilemmas across diverse measures.
Patil, I., Zucchelli, M. M., Kool, W., Campbell, S., Fornasier, F., Calò, M., Silani, G., Cikara, M., & Cushman, F. (2021) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000281 · Cited by 133
Bayesian or biased? Analytic thinking and political belief updating
Tappin, B. M., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104375 · Cited by 127
Banerjee, K., & Bloom, P. (2014) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.017 · Cited by 129
Rethinking the link between cognitive sophistication and politically motivated reasoning.
Tappin, B. M., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000974 · Cited by 154
Roozenbeek, J., Freeman, A. L. J., & van der Linden, S. (2021) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/09567976211024535 · Cited by 121
Jahanbakhsh, F., Zhang, A. X., Berinsky, A. J., Pennycook, G., Rand, D. G., & Karger, D. R. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3449092 · Cited by 112
Reasoned connections: a dual-process perspective on creative thought
Barr, N., Pennycook, G., Stolz, J. A., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2014.895915 · Cited by 108
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
Outsourcing Memory to External Tools: A Review of ‘Intention Offloading’
Gilbert, S. J., Boldt, A., Sachdeva, C., Scarampi, C., & Tsai, P.-C. (2023) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-022-02139-4 · Cited by 100
“Spiritual but not religious”: Cognition, schizotypy, and conversion in alternative beliefs
Willard, A. K., & Norenzayan, A. (2017) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.018 · Cited by 95
Chang, W., Chen, E., Mellers, B., & Tetlock, P. (2016) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500004599 · Cited by 89
The detection of political deepfakes
Appel, M., & Prietzel, F. (2022) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1093/jcmc/zmac008 · Cited by 95
Probability matching and strategy availability
J. Koehler, D., & James, G. (2010) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/mc.38.6.667 · Cited by 85
Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines
Bago, B., Rand, D. G., & Pennycook, G. (2019) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/29b4j · Cited by 593
How Politics Shape Views Toward Fact-Checking: Evidence from Six European Countries
Lyons, B., Mérola, V., Reifler, J., & Stoeckel, F. (2020) · The International Journal of Press/Politics · doi:10.1177/1940161220921732 · Cited by 82
Arechar, A. A., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-021-01588-4 · Cited by 105
The Algorithmic Level Is the Bridge Between Computation and Brain
Love, B. C. (2015) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.12131 · Cited by 82
Developing an accuracy-prompt toolkit to reduce COVID-19 misinformation online
Epstein, Z., Berinsky, A. J., Cole, R., Gully, A., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review · doi:10.37016/mr-2020-71 · Cited by 93
Byrd, N., & Conway, P. (2019) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.007 · Cited by 77
Psychological foundations of explainability and interpretability in artificial intelligence
Broniatowski, D. A. (2021) · doi:10.6028/nist.ir.8367 · Cited by 76
Human detection of political speech deepfakes across transcripts, audio, and video
Groh, M., Sankaranarayanan, A., Singh, N., Kim, D. Y., Lippman, A., & Picard, R. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-51998-z · Cited by 89
Excessive use of reminders: Metacognition and effort-minimisation in cognitive offloading
Sachdeva, C., & Gilbert, S. J. (2020) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2020.103024 · Cited by 72
A Manager and an AI Walk into a Bar: Does ChatGPT Make Biased Decisions Like We Do?
Chen, Y., Kirshner, S. N., Ovchinnikov, A., Andiappan, M., & Jenkin, T. (2025) · Manufacturing & Service Operations Management · doi:10.1287/msom.2023.0279 · Cited by 143
Guo, Q., Sun, P., Cai, M., Zhang, X., & Song, K. (2019) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2019.02.006 · Cited by 60
Firth, A. M., Cavallini, I., Sütterlin, S., & Lugo, R. G. (2019) · Psychology Research and Behavior Management · doi:10.2147/prbm.s206666 · Cited by 57
Felmingham, C. M., Adler, N. R., Ge, Z., Morton, R. L., Janda, M., & Mar, V. J. (2021) · American Journal of Clinical Dermatology · doi:10.1007/s40257-020-00574-4 · Cited by 57
Mourali, M., & Drake, C. (2022) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/34831 · Cited by 55
Reliance on emotion promotes belief in fake news
Martel, C., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/a2ydw · Cited by 49
An encounter frequency account of how experience affects likelihood estimation
Obrecht, N. A., Chapman, G. B., & Gelman, R. (2009) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/mc.37.5.632 · Cited by 54
White, C. J. M., & Norenzayan, A. (2019) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2019.03.001 · Cited by 54
The Growing Importance of Decision-Making on the Job
Deming, D. (2021) · doi:10.3386/w28733 · Cited by 52
Procrastination and impatience
Reuben, E., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2015) · Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics · doi:10.1016/j.socec.2015.07.005 · Cited by 47
Xie, H., Zhou, Z., & Liu, Q. (2018) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-018-9442-x · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- Frederick, S.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Frederick, Shane
- ORCID
- Frederick, Shane
- Venue
- Journal of Economic Perspectives
- Publisher
- American Economic Association
- Published
- 2005-11-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 25-42
- ISSN
- 0895-3309 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2161080627
- Cited by
- 5,256
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 317 · 2025: 394 · 2024: 420 · 2023: 455 · 2022: 415 · 2021: 459 · 2020: 392 · 2019: 380 · 2018: 309 · 2017: 320 · 2016: 266 · 2015: 287 · 2014: 195 · 2013: 176 · 2012: 136
- FWCI
- 22.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Economic Perspectives (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Financial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
- Keywords
- cognitive reflection, Cognitive Reflection Test, decision-making, expected utility theory, prospect theory, time preference, risk preferences, cognitive ability, sex differences, cognitive style
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
