Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Mar 29;12(4):39.
doi: 10.3390/jintelligence12040039.

Sex Differences in Cognitive Reflection: A Meta-Analysis

Inmaculada Otero  1 , Alexandra Martínez  1 , Dámaris Cuadrado  1 , Mario Lado  1 , Silvia Moscoso  1 , Jesús F Salgado  1
Affiliations
Review

Sex Differences in Cognitive Reflection: A Meta-Analysis

Inmaculada Otero et al. J Intell. .

Abstract

The current study presents a meta-analytic review of the differences between men and women in cognitive reflection (CR). The study also explores whether the type of CR test (i.e., numerical tests and verbal tests) moderates the relationship between CR and sex. The results showed that men score higher than women on CR, although the magnitude of these differences was small. We also found out that the type of CR test moderates the sex differences in CR, especially in the numerical tests. In addition, the results showed that the length of numerical tests (i.e., number of items) does not affect the differences between men and women in CR. Finally, the implications of these results are discussed, and future research is suggested.

Keywords: cognitive reflection; cognitive reflection test; meta-analysis; sex differences.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flowchart of information through the different phases of a systematic review.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Aczel Balazs, Bago Bence, Szollosi Aba, Foldes Andrei, Lukacs Bence. Measuring individual differences in decision biases: Methodological considerations. Frontiers in Psychology. 2015;6:1770. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01770. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aktas Büsra, Yilmaz Onurcan, Bahçekapili Hasan G. Moral pluralism on the trolley tracks: Different normative principles are used for different reasons in justifying moral judgments. Judgment and Decision Making. 2017;12:297–307. doi: 10.1017/S1930297500005891. - DOI
    1. Albaity Mohamed, Rahman Mahfuzur, Shahidul Islam. Cognitive reflection test and behavioral biases in Malaysia. Judgment and Decision Making. 2014;92:148–51. doi: 10.1017/S1930297500005507. - DOI
    1. Alós-Ferrer Carlos, Hügelschäfer Sabine. Faith in intuition and behavioral biases. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 2012;841:182–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2012.08.004. - DOI
    1. Alós-Ferrer Carlos, Garagnani Michele, Hügelschäfer Sabine. Cognitive reflection, decision biases, and response times. Frontiers in Psychology. 2016;7:1402. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01402. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources