Byrd Nick, Joseph Brianna, Gongora Gabriela, Sirota Miroslav
Intelligence Community Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA.
AIOps, IBM, Atlanta, GA 30319, USA.
J Intell. 2023 Apr 21;11(4):76. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence11040076.
The standard interpretation of cognitive reflection tests assumes that correct responses are reflective and lured responses are unreflective. However, prior process-tracing of reflection tests has cast doubt on this interpretation. In two studies (N = 201), we deployed a validated think-aloud protocol in-person and online to test how this assumption is satisfied by the new, validated, less familiar, and non-mathematical verbal Cognitive Reflection Test (vCRT). Verbalized thoughts in both studies revealed that most (but not all) correct responses involved reflection and that most (but not all) lured responses lacked reflection. The think-aloud protocols seemed to reflect business-as-usual performance: thinking aloud did not disrupt test performance compared to a control group. These data suggest that the vCRT usually satisfies the standard interpretation of the reflection tests (albeit not without exceptions) and that the vCRT can be a good measure of the construct theorized by the two-factor explication of 'reflection' (as deliberate and conscious).
认知反思测试的标准解释假定正确答案是经过反思的，而被诱导的答案是未经反思的。然而，先前对反思测试的过程追踪对这一解释提出了质疑。在两项研究（N = 201）中，我们采用了经过验证的出声思考协议，分别在面对面和在线环境下，来测试新的、经过验证的、不太熟悉的和非数学的语言认知反思测试（vCRT）是如何满足这一假设的。两项研究中通过出声表达的想法都表明，大多数（但不是所有）正确答案都涉及反思，并且大多数（但不是所有）被诱导的答案都缺乏反思。出声思考协议似乎反映了正常的测试表现：与对照组相比，出声思考并没有干扰测试表现。这些数据表明，vCRT通常满足反思测试的标准解释（尽管并非毫无例外），并且vCRT可以很好地衡量由“反思”的双因素解释（即刻意和有意识）所理论化的结构。
