Exact(4)
The Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) is designed to assess people's ability to suppress incorrect heuristic responses in favour of deliberation.
Study 1 demonstrated systematic individual differences in participants' normative-statistical versus heuristic responses to judgmental tasks requiring the assessment of chances for the next event in a sequence.
We based this prediction on earlier claims that the CRT is "not just another numeracy scale" (cf., [ 21]; p.361), but also a potent indicator of a person's ability to avoid tempting, easy-to-generate heuristic responses [ 19].
In our study we employed the DMT (a visuo-spatial task) as a secondary task, because this task has previously been found to increase participants' tendency to rely on heuristic responses in the case of tasks with a heuristic-normative conflict [ 38, 39].
Similar(56)
Thus, people "behave against their better judgment" [4] when they give an unwarranted heuristic response: They detect that they are biased but simply fail to block the biased response.
The decision maker must be able to use situational cues to detect the need to override the heuristic response and sustain the inhibition of the heuristic response while analysing alternative solutions, 37 and must have knowledge of these alternative solutions.
In both studies, besides remembering the dot patterns, the participants were also asked to solve problems with a conflict between a tempting heuristic response and a normative response.
One interpretation is that the caudate nuclei rapidly support the formation of a heuristic response strategy, which is useful under time pressure.
They may have taken this heuristic response approach by surmising they would not be discharged until that level of functioning had been achieved [ 59].
Debiasing involves having the appropriate knowledge of solutions and strategic rules to substitute for a heuristic response as well as the thinking dispositions that are able to trigger overrides of Type 1 (heuristic) processing.
A unique property of the CRT is that, although the problems are open-ended, the vast majority of participants (over 90% in the studies that we reported above) produce either a correct response or a typical (incorrect) heuristic response.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com