Связи когнитивной рефлексии и интеллекта у подростков
Correlation between cognitive reflection and intelligence in teenagers
 
EDN: ESPQNG; УДК: 159.9-053.6
 
Полный текст статьи
 
Вихман Александр Александрович
Vikhman Aleksandr Aleksandrovich
 
кандидат психологических наук, доцент, заведующий кафедрой практической психологии, Пермский государственный гуманитарно-педагогический университет. Россия, г. Пермь. ORCID: 0000-0002-5483-1702. E-mail: vixmann@mail.ru
PhD in Psychology, associate professor, Head of the Department of Practical Psychology, Perm State Humanitarian Pedagogical University. Russia, Perm. ORCID: 0000-0002-5483-1702. E-mail: vixmann@mail.ru
 
Аннотация. Феномен когнитивной рефлексии как способность преодолевать импульсивную интуитивную реакцию при решении когнитивных задач является перспективным концептом и психодиагностическим инструментом в практике общего и высшего образования. Актуальная научная задача – поиск свидетельств связи когнитивной рефлексии и ее дефицитов с различными видами интеллекта в подростковом возрасте. В настоящем исследовании, на выборке 100 подростков (средний возраст 15,5 лет, девушки 73 %, мальчики 27 %), анализируются связи когнитивной рефлексии с различными когнитивными характеристиками. Наиболее тесные корреляционные связи когнитивной рефлексии (CRT-r) обнаружены с общим интеллектом (r=0,418; p<0,001) и вербальным интеллектом (r=0,455; p<0,001). Также когнитивная рефлексия связана с критическим мышлением (навык поиска аргументов) и частично с эмоциональном интеллектом (эмпатия). Обнаружено, что при учете общего интеллекта некоторые интеллектуальные корреляты когнитивной рефлексии теряют свою значимость. Например, связь когнитивной рефлексии с критическим мышлением не сохраняется при учете шкалы общего интеллекта. Корреляционный анализ показывает, что способы решения теста когнитивной рефлексии (рефлексивная и интуитивная реакции) по-разному связаны с критическим мышлением и интуитивными способностями. Факторный анализ также демонстрирует эту разность. Рефлексивная и интуитивная реакции при решении когнитивных задач с интуитивными ловушками попадают в разные факторы. Когнитивная рефлексия (CRT-r) наряду с интеллектом и критическим мышлением попадает в фактор когнитивных способностей. Интуитивная реакция (CRT-i) наряду с эмоциональным интеллектом и интуитивной склонностью попадает в фактор интуитивных способностей. Данный факт свидетельствует в пользу идеи о том, что две шкалы теста когнитивной рефлексии (рефлексия и интуиция) являются не просто ипсативными шкалами, а отдельными феноменами с разной природой и содержанием.
 
Abstract. Cognitive reflection defined as an ability to resist impulsive intuitive reactions when solving cognitive tasks is a promising concept and a psychodiagnostic tool in general and higher education. To find the evidences supporting the correlations between cognitive reflection and its deficit in various types of intelligence among teenagers is a relevant academic task. The present survey sampled 100 teenagers (their average age is 15.5, 73 % females and 27 % males) and examined the correlations between cognitive reflection and various cognitive characteristics. Cognitive reflection (CRT-r) is found to have the closest correlations with general intelligence (r=0.418; p<0.001) and verbal intelligence (r=0.455; p<0.001). Cognitive reflection is also connected with critical thinking (a skill of searching the arguments) and partially with emotional intelligence (empathy). The survey shows that general intelligence could invalidate some intelligence correlates of cognitive reflection. For example, the scale of general intelligence breaks the connections between cognitive reflection and critical thinking. Correlational analysis illustrates that the strategies applied to solve a cognitive reflection test (reflective and intuitive reactions) variously correlate with critical thinking and intuitive abilities. Factor analysis also supports this difference. Reflective and intuitive reactions to the cognitive tasks with intuitive traps are grouped under various factors. Cognitive reflection (CRT-r), as well as intelligence and critical thinking are referred to as a factor of cognitive abilities. Intuitive reaction (CRT-i), as well as emotional intelligence and intuitive inclination are placed into a factor of intuitive abilities. This proves that both scales of the cognitive reflection test (reflection and intuition) are separate phenomena with various nature and content, rather than ipsative scales.
 
Ключевые слова: когнитивная рефлексия, общий интеллект, вербальный интеллект, критическое мышление, интуитивный стиль, эмоциональный интеллект.
Keywords: cognitive reflection, general intelligence, verbal intelligence, critical thinking, intuitive style, emotional intelligence.
 

Список литературы

  1. Вихман А. А. Тест «критическое мышление подростка»: разработка и психометрическая оценка // Вестник Удмуртского университета. Серия: Философия. Психология. Педагогика. 2024. Т. 34. № 2. С. 166–180. DOI: 10.35634/2412-9550-2024-34-2-166-180.
  2. Елисеев О. П. Практикум по психологии личности. СПб. : Питер, 2003. 560 с.
  3. Ильин Е. И. Эмоции и чувства. СПб. : Питер, 2001. 752 с.
  4. Канеман Д., Словик П., Тверски А. Принятие решений в неопределенности: Правила и предубеждения. Харьков : Гуманитарный центр, 2005. 632 с.
  5. Корнилова Т. В., Корнилов С. А. Интуиция, интеллект и личностные свойства (результаты апробации шкал опросника С. Эпстайна) // Психологические исследования. 2013. Т. 6. № 28. С. 5–19.
  6. Прогрессивные матрицы Равена: методические рекомендации / сост. и общая редакция О. Е. Мухордовой, Т. В. Шрейбер. Ижевск : Удмуртский университет, 2011. 70 с.
  7. Родина О. Н., Прудков П. Н. Апробация русскоязычных версий теста когнитивной рефлексии // Вопросы психологии. 2019. № 4. С. 155–162.
  8. Attali Y., Bar-Hillel M. The false allure of fast lures // Judgment & Decision Making. 2020. Vol. 15 (1). Pp. 93–111. DOI: 10.1017/S1930297500006938.
  9. Baddeley A. Working memory: theories, models, and controversies // Annual review of psychology. 2012. Vol. 63. Pp. 1–29. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422.

 10. Baron J., Scott S., Fincher K., Metz S. Why does the cognitive reflection test (sometimes) predict utilitarian moral judgment (and other things)? // Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 2015. Vol. 4 (3). Pp. 265–284. DOI: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.09.003.

 11. Blacksmith N., Yang Y. Assessing the validity of inferences from scores on the cognitive reflection test / T. Behrend, G. Ruark // Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2019. Vol. 32 (5). Pp. 599–612. DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2133.

12. Campitelli G., Gerrans P. Does the cognitive reflection test measure cognitive reflection? A mathematical modeling approach // Memory & Cognition. 2014. Vol. 42. Pp. 434–447. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-013-0367-9.

13. Campitelli G., Labollita M. Correlations of cognitive reflection with judgments and choices // Judgment and Decision Making. 2010. Vol. 5 (3). Pp. 182–191. DOI: 10/91230/jdm91230.pdf.

14. Cokely E., Kelley C. Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk: A protocol analysis and process model evaluation // Judgment and Decision Making. 2009. Vol. 4. P. 20–33. DOI: 10.1017/S1930 29750000067X.

15. Corgnet B., Espín A., Hernán-González R. The cognitive basis of social behavior: cognitive reflection overrides antisocial but not always prosocial motives // Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 2015. Vol. 9. Pp. 287–304. DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00287.

16. De Neys W., Rossi S., Houdé O. Bats, balls, and substitution sensitivity: Cognitive misers are no happy fools // Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2013 Vol. 20 (2). Pp. 269–273. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0384-5.

17. De Neys W. Advancing theorizing about fast-and-slow thinking. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2023. Vol. 46. Pp. 1–19. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X2200142X.

18. Erceg N., Galic Z., Ruzojcic M. A reflection on cognitive reflection-testing convergent validity of two versions of the cognitive reflection test // Judgment and Decision making. 2020. Vol. 15 (5). P. 741–755. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/ewrtq.

19. Evans J. St. B. T. Dual-process theories of reasoning: Facts and fallacies // The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning / In K. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.). New York, NY : Oxford University Press, 2012. Pp. 115–133.

20. Frederick S. Cognitive reflection and decision making // The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2005. Vol. 19. Pp. 25–42.

21. Kahneman D., Frederick S. A model of heuristic judgment / In K. J. Holyoak, & R. G. Morrison (Eds.) // The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge University Press, 2005. Pp. 267–293.

22. Kokis J., Macpherson R. Heuristic and analytic processing: Age trends and associations with cognitive ability and cognitive styles / M. Toplak, R. West, K. Stanovich // Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2002. Vol. 83 (1). Pp. 26–52. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-0965(02)00121-2.

23. Levy N. What does the CRT measure? Poor performance may arise from rational processes // Philosophical Psychology. 2023. Vol. 36 (1). Pp. 58–84. DOI: 10.1080/09515089.2022.2038123.

24. Liberali J., Reyna V. Individual differences in numeracy and cognitive reflection, with implications for biases and fallacies in probability judgment / S. Furlan, L. Stein, S. Pardo // Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2012. Vol. 25 (4). Pp. 361–381. DOI: 10.1002/bdm.752.

25. Martín M., Valiña M. Heuristics, Biases and the Psychology of Reasoning: State of the Art // Psychology. 2023. Vol. 14. Pp. 264–294. DOI: 10.4236/psych.2023.142016.

26. Otero I., Salgado J., Moscoso S. Cognitive reflection, cognitive intelligence, and cognitive abilities: A meta-analysis // Intelligence. 2020. Vol. 90. Pp. 1–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2021.101614.

27. Patel N., Baker S., Scherer L. Evaluating the cognitive reflection test as a measure of intuition/reflection, numeracy, and insight problem solving, and the implications for understanding real-world judgments and beliefs // Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2019. Vol. 148 (12). Pp. 2129–2153. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000592.

28. Primi C., Morsanyi K. The development and testing of a new version of the cognitive reflection test applying item response theory (IRT) / F. Chiesi, M. Donati, J. Hamilton // Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2015. Vol. 29 (5). Pp. 453–469. DOI: 10.1002/bdm.1883.

29. Sinayev A., Peters E. Cognitive reflection vs. calculation in decision making // Frontiers in Psychology. 2015. Vol. 6. Pp. 1–16. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00532.

30. Stanovich K. E., West R. F. On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2008. Vol. 94 (4). Pp. 672–695. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.672.

31. Stanovich K. Rationality and the reflective mind. New York, NY : Oxford University Press, 2011. 344 p.

32. Thomson K., Oppenheimer D. Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test // Judgment and Decision Making. 2016. Vol. 11 (1). Pp. 99–113. DOI: 10.1037/t49856-000.

33. Toplak M., West R., Stanovich K. The cognitive reflection test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks // Memory & Cognition. 2011. Vol. 39 (7). Pp. 1275–1289. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1.

34. Weller J., Dieckmann N. Development and testing of an abbreviated numeracy scale: A Rasch analysis approach / M. Tusler, C. Mertz, W. Burns, E. Peters // Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2013. Vol. 26 (2). Pp. 198–212. DOI: 10.1002/bdm.1751.

35. Welsh M., Burns N., Delfabbro P. The Cognitive Reflection Test: How much more than numerical ability? // Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX / In M. Knauff, N. Sebanz, M. Pauen, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.). Psychology Press. 2013. Vol. 35. Pp. 1587–1592. URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/83719.

References

  1. Vihman A. A. Test "kriticheskoe myshlenie podrostka": razrabotka i psihometricheskaja ocenka [Test "critical thinking of a teenager": development and psychometric evaluation] // Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. Serija Filosofija. Psihologija. Pedagogika – Bulletin of Udmurt University. Series Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy. 2024. Vol. 34. No. 2. Pp. 166–180. DOI 10.35634/2412-9550-2024-34-2-166-180.
  2. Eliseev O. P. Praktikum po psihologii lichnosti [Practical training in personality psychology]. SPb., Piter, 2003. 560 p.
  3. Il'in E. I. Jemocii i chuvstva [Emotions and feelings]. SPb., Piter, 2001. 752 p.
  4. Kaneman D., Slovik P., Tverski A. Prinjatie reshenij v neopredelennosti: Pravila i predubezhdenija [Decision making under uncertainty: Rules and biases]. Kharkov: Humanitarian center, 2005. 632 p.
  5. Kornilova T. V., Kornilov S. A. Intuicija, intellekt i lichnostnye svojstva (rezul'taty aprobacii shkal oprosnika S. Jepstajna) [Intuition, intelligence and personality traits (results of testing the scales of S. Epstein's questionnaire)] // Psychological studies – Psychological studies. 2013. Vol. 6. No. 28. Pp. 5–19.
  6. Progressivnye matricy Ravena: metodicheskie rekomendacii [Raven's Progressive Matrices: methodological recommendations] / ed. by O. E. Mukhordova, T. V. Shreiber. // Izhevsk, Publishing house of Udmurt University, 2011. 70 p.
  7. Rodina O. N., Prudkov P. N. Aprobacija russkojazychnyh versij testa kognitivnoj refleksii [Testing Russian-language versions of the cognitive reflection test] // Voprosy psihologii – Questions of Psychology. 2019. No. 4. Pp. 155–162.
  8. Attali Y., Bar-Hillel M. The false allure of fast lures // Judgment & Decision Making. 2020. Vol. 15 (1). Pp. 93–111. DOI: 10.1017/S1930297500006938.
  9. Baddeley A. Working memory: theories, models, and controversies // Annual review of psychology. 2012. Vol. 63. Pp. 1–29. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422.

10. Baron J., Scott S., Fincher K., Metz S. Why does the cognitive reflection test (sometimes) predict utilitarian moral judgment (and other things)? // Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 2015. Vol. 4 (3). Pp. 265–284. DOI: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.09.003.

11. Blacksmith N., Yang Y. Assessing the validity of inferences from scores on the cognitive reflection test / T. Behrend, G. Ruark // Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2019. Vol. 32 (5). Pp. 599–612. DOI: 10.1002/ bdm.2133.

12. Campitelli G., Gerrans P. Does the cognitive reflection test measure cognitive reflection? A mathematical modeling approach // Memory & Cognition. 2014. Vol. 42. Pp. 434–447. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-013-0367-9.

13. Campitelli G., Labollita M. Correlations of cognitive reflection with judgments and choices // Judgment and Decision Making. 2010. Vol. 5 (3). Pp. 182–191. DOI: 10/91230/jdm91230.pdf.

14. Cokely E., Kelley C. Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk: A protocol analysis and process model evaluation // Judgment and Decision Making. 2009. Vol. 4. P. 20–33. DOI: 10.1017/S19302 9750000067X.

15. Corgnet B., Espín A., Hernán-González R. The cognitive basis of social behavior: cognitive reflection overrides antisocial but not always prosocial motives // Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 2015. Vol. 9. Pp. 287–304. DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00287.

16. De Neys W., Rossi S., Houdé O. Bats, balls, and substitution sensitivity: Cognitive misers are no happy fools // Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2013 Vol. 20 (2). Pp. 269–273. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0384-5.

17. De Neys W. Advancing theorizing about fast-and-slow thinking. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2023. Vol. 46. Pp. 1–19. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X2200142X.

18. Erceg N., Galic Z., Ruzojcic M. A reflection on cognitive reflection-testing convergent validity of two versions of the cognitive reflection test // Judgment and Decision making. 2020. Vol. 15 (5). Pp. 741–755. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/ewrtq.

19. Evans J. St. B. T. Dual-process theories of reasoning: Facts and fallacies // The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning / In K. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.). New York, NY : Oxford University Press, 2012. Pp. 115–133.

20. Frederick S. Cognitive reflection and decision making // The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2005. Vol. 19. Pp. 25–42.

21. Kahneman D., Frederick S. A model of heuristic judgment / In K. J. Holyoak, & R. G. Morrison (Eds.) // The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge University Press, 2005. Pp. 267–293.

22. Kokis J., Macpherson R. Heuristic and analytic processing: Age trends and associations with cognitive ability and cognitive styles / M. Toplak, R. West, K. Stanovich // Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2002. Vol. 83 (1). Pp. 26–52. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-0965(02)00121-2.

23. Levy N. What does the CRT measure? Poor performance may arise from rational processes // Philosophical Psychology. 2023. Vol. 36 (1). Pp. 58–84. DOI: 10.1080/09515089.2022.2038123.

24. Liberali J., Reyna V. Individual differences in numeracy and cognitive reflection, with implications for biases and fallacies in probability judgment / S. Furlan, L. Stein, S. Pardo // Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2012. Vol. 25 (4). Pp. 361–381. DOI: 10.1002/bdm.752.

25. Martín M., Valiña M. Heuristics, Biases and the Psychology of Reasoning: State of the Art // Psychology. 2023. Vol. 14. Pp. 264–294. DOI: 10.4236/psych.2023.142016.

26. Otero I., Salgado J., Moscoso S. Cognitive reflection, cognitive intelligence, and cognitive abilities: A meta-analysis // Intelligence. 2020. Vol. 90. Pp. 1–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2021.101614.

27. Patel N., Baker S., Scherer L. Evaluating the cognitive reflection test as a measure of intuition/reflection, numeracy, and insight problem solving, and the implications for understanding real-world judgments and beliefs // Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2019. Vol. 148 (12). Pp. 2129–2153. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000592.

28. Primi C., Morsanyi K. The development and testing of a new version of the cognitive reflection test applying item response theory (IRT) / F. Chiesi, M. Donati, J. Hamilton // Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2015. Vol. 29 (5). Pp. 453–469. DOI: 10.1002/bdm.1883.

29. Sinayev A., Peters E. Cognitive reflection vs. calculation in decision making // Frontiers in Psychology. 2015. Vol. 6. Pp. 1–16. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00532.

30. Stanovich K. E., West R. F. On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2008. Vol. 94 (4). Pp. 672–695. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.672.

31. Stanovich K. Rationality and the reflective mind. New York, NY : Oxford University Press, 2011. 344 p.

32. Thomson K., Oppenheimer D. Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test // Judgment and Decision Making. 2016. Vol. 11 (1). Pp. 99–113. DOI: 10.1037/t49856-000.

33. Toplak M., West R., Stanovich K. The cognitive reflection test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks // Memory & Cognition. 2011. Vol. 39 (7). Pp. 1275–1289. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1.

34. Weller J., Dieckmann N. Development and testing of an abbreviated numeracy scale: A Rasch analysis approach / M. Tusler, C. Mertz, W. Burns, E. Peters // Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2013. Vol. 26 (2). Pp. 198–212. DOI: 10.1002/bdm.1751.

35. Welsh M., Burns N., Delfabbro P. The Cognitive Reflection Test: How much more than numerical ability? // Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX / In M. Knauff, N. Sebanz, M. Pauen, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.). Psychology Press. 2013. Vol. 35. Pp. 1587–1592. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/83719.

Контент доступен под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.