The CRT. He claims that once the logic pertaining

The results of the present study, to a certain extent,
support the hypothesis that participants’ scores on the CRT will predict scores
on the Temporal Discounting Task. In his original paper, Frederick (2005) found that individual’s who were deemed to be more ‘patient’
scored higher on the CRT and tended to opt for the larger, later reward as
opposed to the smaller, immediate rewards. Toplak,
West and Stanovich (2014) further support Frederick’s (2005) findings as their updated version of the CRT as a
positive correlation was found between performance on the CRT and temporal
discounting.

However, there are some limitations regarding the CRT and
its ability to predict individuals’ scores on temporal discounting tasks. One
limitation of the present study is regarding individuals’ familiarity of the problems
within the CRT. Haigh (2016) cites
that the validity of the CRT is dependent upon the participants lack of prior
knowledge regarding the questions in the CRT. He claims that once the logic
pertaining to these questions or the solutions to them are known, the purpose
of the task and the task itself become invalid in the context of measuring
cognitive reflection. He cites that given that there are only three problems in
the original CRT (Frederick, 2005) where there can only be one correct answer
for each problem, individuals can easily memorise the correct responses, thus
posing a threat to the validity of the CRT. Thompson and Oppenheimer (2016) further draw upon this as they
refer to the well-known ‘bat and ball’ problem from the original CRT which has received
a significant level of exposure via “mainstream media outlets like The New York
Times and Business Insider” (p. 99). They claim that exposure to the CRT also
occurs within institutional settings as the CRT is often taught to students in
psychology and cognitive science courses. They suggest that, for future
research, researchers should avoid using the original CRT and that it may serve
to have researchers studying cognitive reflection to create and validate new
questions so as to control for the level of exposure on individuals (in the
future).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

A further limitation of the present study is regarding the
notion that individual differences can account for scores on the temporal
discounting task as opposed to the CRT accounting for scores on the temporal
discounting task. According to Basile
& Toplak (2011), individual differences such as cognitive abilities,
intelligence and one’s behaviour are factors that can explain an individual’s
level of temporal discounting. They refer to previous studies where it was
found that highly intelligent individuals were more willing to wait for a
larger reward at a later time in the future, a finding which was consistent
with the findings of their own study. With regards to behaviour serving as
another contributing factor towards scores on the Temporal Discounting task,
they assert that a significant number of studies indicate that temporal
discounting is related to risky behaviour, including substance abuse and
gambling. However, their results did not show a significant relationship between
risky behaviour and Temporal Discounting scores as they cite that this may
because the sample size used within their study was not large enough. This may
also be applicable to the present study, therefore it may serve to replicate
the study with a larger sample size in order to achieve a more reliable set of
results.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another potential limitation of the present study is with
regards to sex differences on the CRT. The gender split within the present
study stood at 89.25% females and 10.75% males. In his original study, Frederick
(2005) found that gender differences influenced performance on the CRT and that
males tend to perform better. Within their study, Primi, Morsany, Chiesi,
Donati and Hamilton (2016) also found that there were gender differences with
regards to performance on the original CRT as well as the on the updated
version of the CRT. Similarly Pennycook, Cheyne, Koehler & Fugelsang (2015)
further support Frederick’s findings as they reported that the male
participants also had more correct responses on the CRT than the female
participants; Zhang, Highhouse & Rada (2016) also found that the male
participants scored higher than the female participants on the CRT. They note
that males appear to be more confident in their ‘quantitative abilities’; their
observation is supported by Primi et al. (2016) who also found that the
numerical nature of the problems on the CRT may account for the gender
differences they found within their study. Zhang et al. (2016) and Primi et al.
(2016) suggest, for future replication of the study, that it may serve to observe
indivdiduals on problems that are not quanititaive in nature.