The cognitive ability and working memory framework: Interpreting cognitive reflection test results in the domain of the cognitive experiential theory

Central European Journal of Operations Research https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-020-00721-6 The cognitive ability and working memory framework: Interpreting cognitive reflection test results in the domain of the cognitive experiential theory Ayşegül Engin1 Accepted: 12 November 2020 © The Author(s) 2020 Abstract The cognitive reflection test (hereafter, CRT) is a widely used tool in studies that deal with human decision-making and problem-solving. However, the interpretation of the results of the test remains an open discussion in extant literature. Despite the high predictive power, the characteristics of a decision-maker measured by the CRT remain unclear. This article suggests a novel and inclusive framework that relates the CRT to the cognitive experiential theory (hereafter, CET), which is a well-established dual-process theory. The framework explains the observed phenomena (e.g., individual decision-maker differences) using data from five laboratory experiments. The framework is inclusive because it provides possible explanations for the results in the published literature. The overall results support the argument that the CRT measures the efficiency of the resources of an individual’s working memory. In contrast, the rationality experientiality inventory (hereafter, REI) (a measurement tool of the cognitive experiential theory) captures an individual’s cognitive ability. The efficient use of the working memory leads to the full potential of decision-makers’ cognitive abilities in analytical tasks, thereby indicating that cognitive ability and working memory form a viable framework for studies in the disciplines behavioral operational research (hereafter, OR) and decision sciences. Keywords Cognitive ability and working memory framework · Cognitive reflection test · Cognitive experiential theory · Dual-process theory · Laboratory experiment · Behavioral OR I want to thank Prof. Dr. Rudolf Vetschera for introducing me to research, motivating and inspiring talks, and believing in me. B Ayşegül Engin 1 Department of Business Decisions and Analytics, University of Vienna, Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1, 1090 Vienna, Austria 123 A. Engin 1 Introduction In behavioral OR, a sub-discipline of OR that is concerned with decision-making practice and human problem-solving (Hämäläinen et al. 2013), the CRT is a popular tool. In their meta-study Branas-Garza et al. (2019) report 118 studies, which use the CRT across 21 countries with 44558 participants, thereby documenting the aforementioned scientific popularity. The CRT is a widely used measure for online studies and laboratory experiments because of its prediction power of an individual’s ability to make rational decisions in a wide variety of contexts (Primi et al. 2016). What remains unclear regarding the CRT is the source of its predictive power due to the lack of theoretical consensus. More specifically, the exact decision-maker traits that the tool measures remain an open question (Erceg and Bubić 2017). Until a theoretical link is established between the CRT and the related theories, the interpretations of the test will continue to remain unclear and the debate will remain open. While the initial development of the test is associated with the domain of dualprocess theories (Frederick 2005), the exact relationship with the dual-process framework remains to be investigated. Earlier literature suggests interpreting the results as intelligence (Gino and Ariely 2012), cognitive style (Pennycook et al. 2012), general mental ability (Thomson and Oppenheimer 2016; Toplak et al. 2014), and intuition (Alós-Ferrer and Hügelschäfer 2016) of individuals. This paper suggests a new framework that places the measurement of the CRT in the context of the CET, which is an inclusive dual-process theory. It provides an encompassing explanation for the published results in the literature and a comprehensible conceptualization of the results of the CRT within the CET. The remainder of the paper is structured in the following manner: Sect. 2 introduces the CET and presents the relevant literature for both the CET and the CRT. Section 3 presents the suggested novel framework in detail and formulates the hypotheses. Section 4 provides an insight into the data that is used for the analyses. Section 5 highlights the results, and Sect. 6 concludes the paper. 2 Literature Among decision-making frameworks, dual-process theories constitute a significant pillar, with the main idea being the combined working of two decision-making processes, called type 1 and type 2 (for a review see Padilla et al. 2018). Initially, the idea of having merely two decision-making processes appears like an oversimplification (Evans 2008) and the lack of agreement on the definition of the two systems is discussed broadly in the literature (e.g., Marewski and Gigerenzer 2012; Evans 2008; Sloman 2002). Evans and Stanovich (2013) suggest a revised definition of the processes based on behavioral and neuroscience evidence, characterizing all processes requiring autonomy as type 1 and all processes requiring controlled attention as type 2. For the current paper, dual-process theories with the definition given by Evans and Stanovich (2013) are considered. The remainder of this section explains one of the dual-process theories as the main theoretical background for this study. 123 The cognitive ability and working memory framework... 2.1 The cognitive experiential theory (CET) The CET (formerly known as the cognitive experiential self-theory) is developed as an integrative personality theory, which incorporates the dual system perspective (i.e., the experiential and the rational systems) (Epstein 1973). It includes aspects from selftheory, cognitive science, learning theory, theory of emotions, and psychoanalytic theory (Epstein 2014). Because of its inclusive property, the CET delivers plausible explanations for situations that other theories declare as outliers, and therefore, do not provide an explanation for. Therefore, in the current paper, the CET is the choice of theoretical background. The relevant details of the CET are explained below. 2.1.1 Definition of the two systems The CET utilizes an implicit self-theory to explain the adaptive nature of human behavior. On the one hand, it assumes that every individual has implicit beliefs regarding how they think and feel about themselves and their environment, which is automatically derived from their experiences. These implicit beliefs reside in the cognitive map of the individuals’ brain and have an implicit, dynamic, and hierarchical structure, which is referred to as the experiential system (Epstein 1994). In the lingo of the general dual-process theories, the experiential system conducts type-1 processing. On the other hand, the rational system operates in accordance with the individual’s logical reasoning and it performs type-2 processing. This system is majorly transmitted through culture, as it requires l (...truncated)