Cognitive Reflection Test
The Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT), developed by Shane Frederick, a professor at Yale University’s School of Management, is a concise tool designed to assess reflective thinking. Introduced in 2005, it emerged from research at elite institutions like MIT, Princeton, and Harvard, where psychologists and economists, including Daniel Kahneman (Princeton) and Keith Stanovich (University of Toronto), explored decision-making. Comprising three questions, the CRT evaluates one’s ability to suppress intuitive responses and engage in deliberate, analytical reasoning, distinguishing quick impulses from deeper cognition.
This test is in timed mode and has 3 questions. You have 5 minutes to complete as many items as you can in any order you want. Make sure to spend your time wisely. Don't spend too much time on any one item as it can hurt your final score.
You cannot use external help like a calculator, writing things down, or looking things up. All questions must be solved in your head.
Cognitive testing has long been a cornerstone of psychological and educational research, aiming to measure mental faculties like memory, attention, problem-solving, and reasoning. Tools like IQ tests, the Stroop Test, and Raven’s Progressive Matrices assess broad intelligence or specific cognitive skills, often under controlled conditions. These tests help researchers understand how people process information, make decisions, and adapt to complex scenarios. Within this landscape, the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) stands out as a minimalist yet powerful instrument, uniquely focused on the interplay between intuition and reflection.
The CRT, crafted by Shane Frederick, zeroes in on a specific cognitive process: the ability to override System 1 thinking—fast, automatic, and often error-prone—with System 2 thinking, which is slower, deliberate, and analytical. This dual-process theory, popularized by Daniel Kahneman, underpins the CRT’s design. Its three questions (e.g., the bat-and-ball problem) are deceptively simple, luring most people toward intuitive but incorrect answers. For instance, the question “A bat and a ball cost $1.10; the bat costs $1.00 more than the ball; how much does the ball cost?” tempts a snap response of 10 cents, though the correct answer is 5 cents. This reveals not just math skills but the tendency to reflect beyond first impulses.
Unlike comprehensive cognitive batteries, such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, which probe multiple domains over hours, the CRT is brief—often taking minutes—yet correlates strongly with broader measures of rationality and decision-making. Research by Keith Stanovich and Richard West (both affiliated with the University of Toronto) shows CRT scores predict performance on tasks requiring resistance to cognitive biases, like the base-rate fallacy or overconfidence. Elite university students, such as those at MIT (averaging 2.18/3 correct), excel on the CRT, reflecting their training in analytical rigor, while the U.S. public averages closer to 1.0, with 45% scoring 0, highlighting widespread reliance on intuition.
Cognitive testing often aims to map intelligence or diagnose deficits, but the CRT’s niche is diagnostic in a different way: it exposes “cognitive miserliness”—the habit of skimping on mental effort. This has implications beyond academia. In economics, CRT scores predict financial decision-making; in medicine, they correlate with doctors’ diagnostic accuracy. Yet, the test isn’t without critique. Some argue its numerical focus favors those with math aptitude, potentially skewing results by gender (men slightly outperform women) or education level. Verbal CRT variants, developed later, attempt to address this, though they’re less studied.
In relation to broader cognitive testing, the CRT bridges psychology and behavioral science, offering a snapshot of reflective capacity that complements traditional IQ metrics. While IQ tests measure raw ability, the CRT probes how that ability is applied under tempting conditions. Its simplicity belies its depth, making it a favorite among researchers at Yale, Harvard, and beyond to explore human judgment. As cognitive science evolves, the CRT remains a litmus test for distinguishing snap thinkers from reflective ones, illuminating the mind’s tug-of-war between ease and accuracy.
Why Use This Test?
The CRT’s appeal lies in its efficiency and specificity. Researchers and practitioners use it to quickly gauge cognitive reflection—a skill linked to resisting biases, making sound financial choices, and even improving medical diagnoses. Unlike IQ tests, which assess raw capacity across domains, the CRT targets a practical trait: the willingness to override “cognitive miserliness,” or mental laziness. Its predictive power for real-world decision-making, from economic behavior to academic success, makes it invaluable. For example, low CRT scores signal susceptibility to overconfidence or base-rate neglect, guiding interventions in education or policy. Its simplicity also allows widespread use, from classrooms to behavioral studies, despite critiques of its numerical bias favoring math-savvy groups.