We conducted two studies with two goals in mind. First, we investigated the dimensionality of several prominent cognitive bias tasks to see whether a single rationality factor can explain a performance on these tasks. Second, we validated this factor by correlating it with a number of constructs from its nomological network (fluid intelligence, numeracy, actively open-minded thinking, conspiracy and superstitious thinking, personality traits) and several real-life outcomes (decision-outcome inventory, job and career satisfaction, peer-rated decision-making quality). Although in both studies one-factor solution was the most appropriate for our tasks, this factor (i.e., “rationality factor”) was weak and only able to account for modest portion of variance among the tasks. Across both studies, the two strongest correlates of this rationality factor were numeracy and actively open-minded thinking. We conclude that cognitive bias tasks are highly heterogeneous, having very little in common. What they had in common, however, was largely underpinned by abilities and dispositions assessed with numeracy and actively open-minded thinking. We discuss how our findings relate to the dual-process theories and offer our view on the place of rationality in a broader model of human intelligence.

我们针对两个目标进行了两项研究。首先，我们调查了几个突出的认知偏差任务的维度，看看单个理性因素是否可以解释这些任务的表现。其次，我们通过将其与其规则网络（流体智力、算术、积极开明的思维、阴谋和迷信思维、个性特征）和几个现实生活中的结果（决策-结果清单、工作和职业满意度、同行评价的决策质量）。尽管在这两项研究中，单因素解决方案最适合我们的任务，但这个因素（即“理性因素”）很弱，只能解释任务之间的适度差异。在两项研究中，这种理性因素的两个最强关联是计算能力和积极开放的思维。我们得出结论，认知偏差任务是高度异质的，几乎没有共同点。然而，他们的共同点主要是通过计算能力和积极开放的思维来评估能力和性格。我们讨论我们的发现如何与双过程理论相关，并提供我们对理性在更广泛的人类智能模型中的地位的看法。