Email this article The Cognitive Reflection Test and Numeracy as a Predictor of Students’ Choice of Major in Undergraduate Programs
Abstract
Currently, choosing a field of study is one of the most important decisions people make. In this regard, the existence of individual differences can affect the decision-making process, as several studies have shown the influence of cognitive bias on how indi viduals make decisions and employ the process of judgment, which depend on their cognitive abilities. The purpose of this study is to examine the predictive features of the Cognitive Reflection Test and numeracy skills for the probability of choosing a field of study for first-year college students at University of Tabriz. For this purpose, by using a simple random sampling method, a number of 117 freshmen from the faculties of Medicine, Engineering, Humanities, and Economics at the University of Tabriz were selected, and two cognitive reflection and numeracy tests were conducted with them. The results of the regression analysis showed that higher CRT and numeracy have a positive and significant effect on choosing a field in engineering and pharmacy faculties.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Browne, M., Pennycook, G., Goodwin, B., & Mchenry, M. (2014). Reflective minds and open hearts: Cognitive style and personality predict religiosity and spiritual thinking in a community sample. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(7), 736–742. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2059
Campitelli, G., & Labollita, M. (2010). Correlations of cognitive reflection with judgments and choices. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(3), 182–191.
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(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2009.04.001
Daymont, T. N., Andrisani, P. J., The, S., Resources, H., & Summer, N. (2014). The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System Job Preferences , College Major , and the Gender Gap in Earnings. The Journal of Human Resources, 19(3), 408–428.
Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49(8), 709–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.8.709
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732
Fricke, H., Grogger, J., & Steinmayr, A. (2018). Exposure to academic fields and college major choice. Economics of Education Review, 64(March), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.04.007
Friedenberg, J., & Silverman, G. (2006). Cognitive Science: An Introduction to the Study of Mind. Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Gómez-Chacón, I. M., García-Madruga, J. A., Vila, J. Ó., Elosúa, M. R., & Rodríguez, R. (2014). The dual processes hypothesis in mathematics performance: Beliefs, cognitive reflection, working memory and reasoning. Learning and Individual Differences, 29, 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.10.001
Hanoch, Y., Miron-Shatz, T., Cole, H., Himmelstein, M., & Federman, A. D. (2010). Choice numeracy and physicians-in-training performance: the case of Medicare Part D. Health Psychology, 29(4), 454–459. https://doi.org/10.10.1037/a0019881
Hoppe, E. I., & Kusterer, D. J. (2011). Behavioral biases and cognitive reflection. Economics Letters, 110(2), 97–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2010.11.015
Humburg, M. (2012). The Effect of the Big Five Personality Traits on College Major Choice: Evidence from a Dutch longitudinal youth cohort study.
Humphries, J. E., Schrøter, J., & Veramendi, J. G. (2017). College Major Choice: Sorting and Differential Returns to Skills. https://doi.org/Retrieved from https://editorialexpress.com/cgi-bin/conference/download.cgi?db_name=SED2017&paper_id=1623
Kahneman, D. (2003). A Perspective on Judgment and Choice: Mapping Bounded Rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697
Liberali, J. M., Reyna, V. F., Furlan, S., & Stein, L. M. (2012). Individual Differences in Numeracy and Cognitive Reflection, with Implications for Biases and Fallacies in Probability Judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(4), 361–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.752.Individual
Lipkus, I. M., Samsa, G., & Rimer, B. K. (2001). General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making, 21(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X0102100105
Päßler, K., & Hell, B. (2012). Do Interests and Cognitive Abilities Help Explain College Major Choice Equally Well for Women and Men? Journal of Career Assessment, 20(4), 479–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072712450009
Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2015). Everyday Consequences of Analytic Thinking. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 425–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415604610
Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Mazzocco, K., & Dickert, S. (2006). Numeracy and Decision Making. Psychological Science, 17(5), 407–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x
Peters, E., Hart, P. S., & Fraenkel, L. (2011). Informing patients: The influence of numeracy, framing, and format of side effect information on risk perceptions. Medical Decision Making, 31(3), 432–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X10391672
Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (2008). Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(1), 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.011
Reyna, V. F., Nelson, W. L., Han, P. K., & Dieckmann, N. F. (2009). How Numeracy Influences Risk Comprehension and Medical Decision Making. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 943–973. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017327.How
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning : Implications for the ratinality debates ? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–726.
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(7), 1275–1289. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2014). Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Thinking and Reasoning, 20(2), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.844729
Weber, E. U., & Johnson, E. J. (2009). Mindful Judgment and Decision Making. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 53–85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163633
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7358/ecps-2019-019-deld
Copyright (©) 2019 Mostafa Deldoost, Parviz Mohammadzadeh, Mohammad Taghi Saeedi, Akram Akbari – Editorial format and Graphical layout: copyright (©) LED Edizioni Universitarie
Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies (ECPS)
Registered by Tribunale di Milano (19/05/2010 n. 278)
Online ISSN 2037-7924 - Print ISSN 2037-7932
Research Laboratory on Didactics and Evaluation - Department of Education - "Roma Tre" University
Executive Editor: Gaetano Domenici - Associate Executive Editor & Managing Editor: Valeria Biasci
Editorial Board: Eleftheria Argyropoulou - Massimo Baldacci - Joao Barroso - Richard Bates - Christofer Bezzina - Paolo Bonaiuto - Lucia Boncori - Pietro Boscolo - Sara Bubb - Carlo Felice Casula - Jean-Émile Charlier - Lucia Chiappetta Cajola - Carmela Covato - Jean-Louis Derouet - Peter Early - Franco Frabboni - Constance Katz - James Levin - Pietro Lucisano - Roberto Maragliano - Romuald Normand - Michael Osborne - Donatella Palomba - Michele Pellerey - Clotilde Pontecorvo - Vitaly V. Rubtzov - Jaap Scheerens - Noah W. Sobe - Francesco Susi - Giuseppe Spadafora - Pat Thomson
Editorial Staff: Fabio Alivernini - Guido Benvenuto - Anna Maria Ciraci - Massimiliano Fiorucci - Luca Mallia - Massimo Margottini - Giovanni Moretti - Carla Roverselli
Editorial Secretary:Nazarena Patrizi
© 2001 LED Edizioni Universitarie di Lettere Economia Diritto