One of the current topics in research on the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) is its growing familiarity among the general public. Surprisingly, Bialek and Pennycook (2017) showed that previous exposure does not diminish the CRT’s predictive power in Heuristics and Biases (H&B) tasks, but proposed that the relationship is moderated by analytic thinking, a conjecture tested in the present study. Participants (N = 365) filled in the CRT, Need for Cognition (NFC) scale, and a battery of H&B problems. While the CRT did retain its predictive power in the H&B performance, regardless of participants’ self-reported thinking dispositions and exposure, both of these factors moderated the relationship, such that exposure increased CRT’s predictive power in H&B tasks, albeit only among high-NFC individuals. Present results converge with studies showing that prior exposure does not invalidate the use of CRT, while offering some novel evidence for the metacognitive disadvantage account proposed by Bialek and Pennycook (2017).

中文翻译：

---

这些问题对我来说很熟悉：以前的接触、认知反射测试和分析思维的调节作用

认知反射测试 (CRT) 的当前研究主题之一是它在公众中的日益熟悉。令人惊讶的是，Bialek 和 Pennycook (2017) 表明，先前的暴露并没有降低 CRT 在启发式和偏差 (H&B) 任务中的预测能力，但提出这种关系是由分析思维调节的，这是本研究中测试的一个猜想。参与者 (N = 365) 填写了 CRT、认知需求 (NFC) 量表和一系列 H&B 问题。尽管 CRT 确实保留了其在 H&B 表现中的预测能力，但无论参与者自我报告的思维倾向和暴露程度如何，这两个因素都缓和了这种关系，因此暴露增加了 CRT 在 H&B 任务中的预测能力，尽管仅在高 NFC 中个人。