Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T04:21:03.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

46 - Intelligence and Rationality

from Part VIII - Intelligence and Allied Constructs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2019

By
Keith E. Stanovich ,
Maggie E. Toplak  and
Richard F. West
Edited by
Robert J. Sternberg
Robert J. Sternberg
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Get access

Summary

There are individual differences in rational thinking that are less than perfectly correlated with individual differences in intelligence because intelligence and rationality occupy different conceptual locations in models of cognition. A tripartite extension of currently popular dual-process theories is presented in this chapter that illustrates how intelligence and rationality are theoretically separate concepts. Thus, individual differences in the cognitive skills that underlie rational thinking must be studied in their own right because intelligence tests do not explicitly assess rational thinking. We close the chapter by describing our attempt to develop the first prototype of a comprehensive test of rational thought, the Comprehensive Assessment of Rational Thinking (CART). With the CART, we aim to draw more attention to the skills of rational thought by measuring them systematically and by examining the correlates of individual differences in these cognitive skills.

Keywords

intelligencerationalitydual process modelsheuristics and biases tasksreflective mindComprehensive Assessment of Rational Thinking
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , pp. 1106 - 1139
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A theory of adult development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 227–257.Google Scholar
Ackerman, P. L. (2014). Adolescent and adult intellectual development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 246–251.Google Scholar
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ackerman, P. L., & Kanfer, R. (2004). Cognitive, affective, and conative aspects of adult intellect within a typical and maximal performance framework. In Dai, D. Y. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 119–141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Adams, M. J. (1993). Towards making it happen. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 42, 214–218.Google Scholar
Alós-Ferrer, C., & Strack, F. (2014). From dual processes to multiple selves: Implications for economic behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 41, 1–11.Google Scholar
Arkes, H. R., & Ayton, P. (1999). The sunk cost and Concorde effects: Are humans less rational than lower animals? Psychological Bulletin, 125, 591–600.Google Scholar
Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2017). Fast logic? Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory. Cognition, 158, 90–109.Google Scholar
Baron, J. (1993). Why teach thinking?–An essay. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 42, 191–214.Google Scholar
Baron, J. (2008). Thinking and deciding (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baron, J. (2014). Heuristics and biases. In Zamir, E. & Teichman, D. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of behavioral economics and the law (pp. 3–27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baron, J., Bazerman, M. H., & Shonk, K. (2006). Enlarging the societal pie through wise legislation. A psychological perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 123–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baron, J., Scott, S., Fincher, K., & Metz, S. E. (2015). Why does the Cognitive Reflection Test (sometimes) predict utilitarian moral judgment (and other things)? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 265–284.Google Scholar
Barrett, H. C., & Kurzban, R. (2006). Modularity in cognition: Framing the debate. Psychological Review, 113, 628–647.Google Scholar
Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individual differences in adult decision-making competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 938–956.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burgess, G. C., Gray, J. R., Conway, A. R., & Braver, T. S. (2011). Neural mechanisms of interference control underlie the relationship between fluid intelligence and working memory span. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 674–692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J., & Jarvis, W. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. F. (2000). Prospect theory in the wild: Evidence from the field. In Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (Eds.), Choices, values, and frames (pp. 288–300). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P. (2006). The architecture of the mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory for fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 1–22.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1998). Where is intelligence? Some answers from the triadic theory. In McArdle, J. J. & Woodcock, R. W. (Eds.), Human cognitive abilities in theory and practice (pp. 29–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Chein, J., & Schneider, W. (2012). The brain’s learning and control architecture. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 78–84.Google Scholar
Chuderski, A. (2014). The relational integration task explains fluid reasoning above and beyond other working memory tasks. Memory and Cognition, 42, 448–463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chuderski, A. (2015). The broad factor of working memory is virtually isomorphic to fluid intelligence tested under time pressure. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 98–104.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (2001). Mindware: An introduction to the philosophy of cognitive science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cokely, E. T., & Kelley, C. M. (2009). Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk: A protocol analysis and process model evaluation. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 20–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corser, R., & Jasper, J. D. (2014). Enhanced activation of the left hemisphere promotes normative decision making. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 19(3), 368–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cronbach, L. J. (1949). Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Dawes, R. M. (1976). Shallow psychology. In Carroll, J. S. & Payne, J. W. (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior (pp. 3–11). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Dawes, R. M. (1998). Behavioral decision making and judgment. In Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T, & Lindzey, G. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 497–548). Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Deary, I. J. (2000). Looking down on human intelligence: From psychometrics to the brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deary, I. J. (2013). Intelligence. Current Biology, 23, R673–R676.Google Scholar
De Neys, W. (Ed.) (2018). Dual process theory 2.0. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
de Sousa, R. (2007). Why think? Evolution and the rational mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1996). Kinds of minds: Toward an understanding of consciousness. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Duncan, J. (2010). How intelligence happens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Duncan, J., Parr, A., Woolgar, A., Thompson, R., Bright, P., Cox, S., Bishop, S., & Nimmo-Smith, I. (2008). Goal neglect and Spearman’s g: Competing parts of a complex task. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 137, 131–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 380–417.Google Scholar
Engel de Abreu, P. M. J., Conway, A. R. A., & Gathercole, S. E. (2010). Working memory and fluid intelligence in young children. Intelligence, 38, 552–561.Google Scholar
Engle, R. W. (2018). Working memory and executive attention: A revisit. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 190–193.Google Scholar
Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Are adjustments insufficient? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 447–460.Google Scholar
Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science, 17, 311–318.Google Scholar
Etzioni, Amitai. (2014). Treating rationality as a continuous variable. Society, 51, 393–400.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 378–395.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2007). Hypothetical thinking: Dual processes in reasoning and judgment. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2009). How many dual-process theories do we need? One, two, or many? In Evans, J. & Frankish, K. (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 33–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2010). Thinking twice: Two minds in one brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2014). Reasoning, rationality and dual processes. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Frankish, K. (Eds.). (2009). In two minds: Dual processes and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. (2004). If. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 223–241.Google Scholar
Feldman Barrett, L. F., Tugade, M. M., & Engle, R. W. (2004). Individual differences in working memory capacity and dual-process theories of the mind. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 553–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Nicholson, N., Soane, E., & Willman, P. (2003). Trading on illusions: Unrealistic perceptions of control and trading performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finucane, M. L., & Gullion, C. M. (2010). Developing a tool for measuring the decision-making competence of older adults. Psychology and Aging, 25, 271–288.Google Scholar
Frank, M. J., Cohen, M., & Sanfey, A. G. (2009). Multiple systems in decision making. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 73–77.Google Scholar
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42.Google Scholar
Frey, D., Johnson, E., & De Neys, W. (2018). Individual differences in conflict detection during reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(5), 1188–1208.Google Scholar
Geary, D. C. (2005). The origin of the mind: Evolution of brain, cognition, and general intelligence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gignac, G. E. (2005). Openness to experience, general intelligence and crystallized intelligence: A methodological extension. Intelligence, 33, 161–167.Google Scholar
Grossmann, I. (2017). Wisdom in context. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 956–972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halpern, D. (2008). Halpern Critical thinking assessment: Background and scoring standards. Unpublished manuscript. Claremont, CA: Claremont McKenna College.Google Scholar
Halpern, D. (2010). Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment: Manual Version 21. Mödling: Schuhfried.Google Scholar
Hicks, K. L., Harrison, T. L., & Engle, R. W. (2015). Wonderlic, working memory capacity, and fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 50, 186–195.Google Scholar
Hilton, D. J. (2003). Psychology and the financial markets: Applications to understanding and remedying irrational decision-making. In Brocas, I. & Carrillo, J. D. (Eds.), The psychology of economic decisions, Vol. 1, Rationality and well-being (pp. 273–297). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1967). Age differences in fluid and crystallized intelligence. Acta Psychologica, 26, 1–23.Google Scholar
Hsee, C. K., & Hastie, R. (2006). Decision and experience: Why don’t we choose what makes us happy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 31–37.Google Scholar
Hunt, E. (2011). Human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jacowitz, K. E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1161–1167.Google Scholar
Jastrzębskia, J., Ciechanowska, I., & Chuderski, A. (2018). The strong link between fluid intelligence and working memory cannot be explained away by strategy use. Intelligence, 66, 44–53.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. C. (1983). The logic of decision (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, W., & Bouchard, T. J. (2005). The structure of human intelligence: It is verbal, perceptual, and image rotation (VPR), not fluid and crystallized. Intelligence, 33, 393–416.Google Scholar
Kacelnik, A. (2006). Meanings of rationality. In Hurley, S. & Nudds, M. (Eds.), Rational animals? (pp. 87–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697–720.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York:Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64, 515–526.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237–251.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (2000). Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kanazawa, S. (2004). General intelligence as a domain-specific adaptation. Psychological Review, 111, 512–523.Google Scholar
Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., & Conway, A. R. A. (2005). Working memory capacity and fluid intelligence are strongly related constructs: Comment on Ackerman, Beier, and Boyle (2005). Psychological Bulletin, 131, 66–71.Google Scholar
Kelman, M. (2011). The heuristics debate. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klaczynski, P. A., & Lavallee, K. L. (2005). Domain-specific identity, epistemic regulation, and intellectual ability as predictors of belief-based reasoning: A dual-process perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koehler, D. J., & Harvey, N. (Eds.). (2004). Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kokis, J., Macpherson, R., Toplak, M., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2002). Heuristic and analytic processing: Age trends and associations with cognitive ability and cognitive styles. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83, 26–52.Google Scholar
Kovacs, K., & Conway, A. R. A. (2016). Process overlap theory: A unified account of the general factor of intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 27, 151–177.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, C. J. (2006). Gricean charity: The Gricean turn in psychology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 36, 193–218.Google Scholar
Levin, I. P., Gaeth, G. J., Schreiber, J., & Lauriola, M. (2002). A new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 411–429.Google Scholar
Liberali, J. M., Reyna, V. F., Furlan, S., Stein, L. M., & Pardo, S. T. (2012). Individual differences in numeracy and cognitive reflection, with implications for biases and fallacies in probability judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25, 361–381.Google Scholar
Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1971). Reversal of preferences between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 46–55.Google Scholar
Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1973). Response-induced reversals of preference in gambling: An extended replication in Las Vegas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 16–20.Google Scholar
Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (Eds.). (2006). The construction of preference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieberman, M. D. (2009). What zombies can’t do: A social cognitive neuroscience approach to the irreducibility of reflective consciousness. In Evans, J. St. B. T. & Frankish, K. (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 293–316). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mackintosh, N. J., & Bennett, E. S. (2003). The fractionation of working memory maps onto different components of intelligence. Intelligence, 31, 519–531.Google Scholar
Macpherson, R., & Stanovich, K. E. (2007). Cognitive ability, thinking dispositions, and instructional set as predictors of critical thinking. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 115–127.Google Scholar
Manktelow, K. I. (2004). Reasoning and rationality: The pure and the practical. In Manktelow, K. I. & Chung, M. C. (Eds.), Psychology of reasoning: Theoretical and historical perspectives (pp. 157–177). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Maule, J., & Villejoubert, G. (2007). What lies beneath: Reframing framing effects. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 25–44.Google Scholar
McClure, S. M., & Bickel, W. K. (2014). A dual‐systems perspective on addiction: contributions from neuroimaging and cognitive training. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1327, 62–78.Google Scholar
McClure, S. M., Laibson, D. I., Loewenstein, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards. Science, 306, 503–507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGrew, K. S. (2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37, 1–10.Google Scholar
McLaren, I. P., Forrest, C. L., McLaren, R. P., Jones, F. W., Aitken, M. R., & Mackintosh, N. J. (2014). Associations and propositions: the case for a dual-process account of learning in humans. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 108, 185–195.Google Scholar
McVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. (2012). Why does working memory capacity predict variation in reading comprehension? On the influence of mind wandering and executive attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 302–320.Google Scholar
Milkman, K. L., Rogers, T., & Bazerman, M. H. (2008). Harnessing our inner angels and demons. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 324–338.Google Scholar
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions four general conclusions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 8–14.Google Scholar
Moors, A., & De Houwer, J. (2006). Automaticity: A theoretical and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 297–326.Google Scholar
Moshman, D. (2004). From inference to reasoning: The construction of rationality. Thinking and Reasoning, 10, 221–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mrazek, M. D., Smallwood, J., Franklin, M. S., Chin, J. M., Baird, B., & Schooler, J. W. (2012). The role of mind-wandering in measurements of general aptitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 788–798.Google Scholar
Nigg, J. T. (2017). On the relations among self-regulation, self-control, executive functioning, effortful control, cognitive control, impulsivity, risk-taking, and inhibition for developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58, 361–383.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012). Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments. American Psychologist, 67, 130–159.Google Scholar
Over, D. E. (2000). Ecological rationality and its heuristics. Thinking and Reasoning, 6, 182–192.Google Scholar
Over, D. E. (2004). Rationality and the normative/descriptive distinction. In Koehler, D. J. & Harvey, N. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 3–18). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Parker, A. M., Bruine de Bruin, W., & Fischhoff, B. (2015). Negative decision outcomes are more common among people with lower decision-making competence: an item-level analysis of the Decision Outcome Inventory (DOI). Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 363. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00363Google Scholar
Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2005). Decision-making competence: External validation through an individual differences approach. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 1–27.Google Scholar
Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2015). What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement. Cognitive Psychology, 80, 34–72.Google Scholar
Perkins, D. N. (1995). Outsmarting IQ: The emerging science of learnable intelligence. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, W. J., Fletcher, J. M., Marks, A. D., & Hine, D. W. (2016). Thinking styles and decision making: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 260–290.Google Scholar
Prado, J., & Noveck, I. A. (2007). Overcoming perceptual features in logical reasoning: A parametric functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 642–657.Google Scholar
Rand, D. G., Tomlin, D., Bear, A., Ludvig, E. A., & Cohen, J. D. (2017). Cyclical population dynamics of automatic versus controlled processing: An evolutionary pendulum. Psychological Review, 124(5), 626–642.Google Scholar
Salthouse, T. A., Atkinson, T. M., & Berish, D. E. (2003). Executive functioning as a potential mediator of age-related cognitive decline in normal adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 566–594.Google Scholar
Samuels, R. (2005). The complexity of cognition: Tractability arguments for massive modularity. In Carruthers, P., Laurence, S., & Stich, S. (Eds.), The innate mind (pp. 107–121). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Samuels, R. (2009). The magical number two, plus or minus: Dual-process theory as a theory of cognitive kinds. In Evans, J. St. B. T. & Frankish, K. (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 129–146). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 162–173.Google Scholar
Sherman, J. W., Gawronski, B., & Trope, Y. (2014). Dual-process theories of the social mind. New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.Google Scholar
Siegel, H. (1997). Rationality redeemed? Further dialogues on an educational ideal. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129–138.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., & Peters, E. (2006). Risk perception and affect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 322–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slovic, S., & Slovic, P. (2015). Numbers and nerves: Information, emotion, and meaning in a world of data. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (1993). Dysrationalia: A new specific learning disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 501–515.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2004). The robot’s rebellion: Finding meaning in the age of Darwin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2009). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2011). Rationality and the reflective mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2012). On the distinction between rationality and intelligence: Implications for understanding individual differences in reasoning. In Holyoak, K. & Morrison, R (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 343–365). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Why humans are (sometimes) less rational than other animals: Cognitive complexity and the axioms of rational choice. Thinking and Reasoning, 19, 1–26.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2016). The Comprehensive Assessment of Rational Thinking. Educational Psychologist, 51, 23–34.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2018). Miserliness in human cognition: The interaction of detection, override, and mindware. Thinking and Reasoning, 24, 423–444.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & Toplak, M. E. (2012). Defining features versus incidental correlates of Type 1 and Type 2 processing. Mind and Society, 11, 3–13.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., Toplak, M. E., & West, R. F. (2008). The development of rational thought: A taxonomy of heuristics and biases. Advances in child development and behavior, 36, 251–285.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1997). Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 342–357.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 161–188.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–726.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 672–695.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2016). The Rationality Quotient: Toward a test of rational thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2002). Why smart people can be so stupid. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Zhang, L. F. (2008). Styles of learning and thinking matter in instruction and assessment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 486–506.Google Scholar
Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Scott Edwards, C. (1994). The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 742–752.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E. (1981). The interface of cognitive and social psychology. In Harvey, J. H. (Ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the environment (pp. 189–211). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H. (2015). Misbehaving: The making of behavioral economics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, V. A., Prowse Turner, J. A., & Pennycook, G. (2011). Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63, 107–140.Google Scholar
Toates, F. (2005). Evolutionary psychology: Towards a more integrative model. Biology and Philosophy, 20, 305–328.Google Scholar
Toates, F. (2006). A model of the hierarchy of behavior, cognition, and consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 75–118.Google Scholar
Toplak, M., Liu, E., Macpherson, R., Toneatto, T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2007). The reasoning skills and thinking dispositions of problem gamblers: A dual-process taxonomy. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 103–124.Google Scholar
Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2002). The domain specificity and generality of disjunctive reasoning: Searching for a generalizable critical thinking skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 197–209.Google Scholar
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2011). The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics and biases tasks. Memory and Cognition, 39, 1275–1289.Google Scholar
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2014a). Assessing miserly processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Thinking and Reasoning, 20, 147–168.Google Scholar
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2014b). Rational thinking and cognitive sophistication: Development, cognitive abilities, and thinking dispositions. Developmental Psychology, 50, 1037–1048.Google Scholar
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2017). Real-world correlates of performance on heuristics and biases tasks in a community sample. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30, 541–554.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.Google Scholar
von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). The theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2000). Intelligence and personality. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 581–610). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×