Bilişsel Yansıma Testi Sözel Formunun Türkçe’ye Uyarlanması

Year 2024, Issue: 73, 57 - 67, 15.12.2024

Gökhan Şahin

https://doi.org/10.55590/literatureandhumanities.1462833

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, literatürde analitik ve sezgisel bilişsel stili değerlendirmekte yaygın şekilde kullanılan bilişsel yansıma testinin, matematik becerileri içeriyor olması ve kullanılan soruların aşinalık düzeylerinin artış gösteriyor olmasından yola çıkarak, sözel bir yansıma testi geliştirilmesi amacıyla Sirota ve arkadaşlarının geliştirdikleri sözel bilişsel yansıma testinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması amaçlanmıştır. Bu kapsamda öncelikle ölçeğin dil çevirileri yapılmış, devamında Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) ve güvenirlik geçerlilik analizleri uygulanmıştır. Çalışmanın örneklemi, kolayda örnekleme yöntemi ile sosyal medya üzerinden ulaşılan gönüllü 297 kişiden (244 kadın, 53 erkek) oluşturulmuştur. Ölçeğin ölçüt geçerliliği için Sirota ve Juanchic tarafından Frederick ‘in üç maddelik orijinal çalışmasıyla Toplak ve arkadaşlarının dört maddelik çalışmasını birleştirerek genişlettikleri ve dört alternatifli yanıt seçenekleri ekledikleri genişletilmiş sayısal bilişsel yansıma testi versiyonu kullanılmıştır. Sayısal bilişsel yansıma testinden elde edilen analitik ve sezgisel puanlarla Sözel bilişsel yansıma testinden elde edilen aynı puanlar arasında gözlenen anlamlı pozitif korelasyon ilişkileri uyarlanan ölçeğin ölçüt geçerliliğine sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Bununla birlikte DFA sonuçları ve iç tutarlılık analizleri sonuçları ölçeğin 8 maddelik son halinin, analitik ve sezgisel bilişsel stili değerlendirmede Türkçe’de uygulanabilir bir ölçek olduğu ortaya koymuştur.

Keywords

Bilişsel Stil, Bilişsel Yansıma Testi, Sözel bilişsel yansıma testi, Analitik sezgisel bilişsel stil

Adaptation of the Cognitive Reflection Test Verbal Form into Turkish

Abstract

In this study, based on the fact that the cognitive reflection test, which is widely used in the literature to assess analytical and intuitive cognitive styles, includes mathematical skills and the familiarity level of the questions used increases, Sirota et al. developed a verbal reflection test. The aim is to adapt the verbal cognitive reflection test to the Turkish language. In this context, first the language translations of the scale were made, and then confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and reliability validity analyses were applied. The sample of the study consisted of 297 volunteers (244 females, 53 males) who were recruited through social media using the convenience sampling method. For the criterion validity of the scale, the expanded version of Sirota and Juanchic's cognitive reflection test was used, which they expanded by combining Frederick's original three-item study with Toplak et al.'s four-item study and adding four alternative response options. Significant positive correlation relationships were observed between the analytical and intuitive scores obtained from the numerical cognitive reflection test and the same scores obtained from the verbal cognitive reflection test, indicating that the adapted scale had criterion validity. However, CFA results and internal consistency analysis results indicated that the final version of the scale, consisting of 8 items, is an applicable scale in Turkish for assessing analytical and intuitive cognitive styles.

Keywords

Cognitive Style, Cognitive Reflection Test, Verbal cognitive reflection test, Analytical intuitive cognitive style

References

• Baron, J., Scott, S., Fincher, K., & Emlen Metz, S. (2015). Why does the Cognitive Reflection Test (sometimes) predict utilitarian moral judgment (and other things)? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(3), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.09.003.
• Bialek, M., Bergelt, M., Majima, Y., & Koehler, D. J. (2019). Cognitive reflection but not reinforcement sensitivity is consistently associated with delay discounting of gains and losses. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 12(3–4), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/npe0000111.
• Bialek, M., & Sawicki, P. (2018). Cognitive reflection effects on time discounting. Journal of Individual Differences, 39(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000254.
• Brañas-Garza, P., Kujal, P., & Lenkei, B. (2019). Cognitive reflection test: Whom, how, when. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 82, 101455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.101455.
• Campitelli, G., & Gerrans, P. (2014). Does the cognitive reflection test measure cognitive reflection? A mathematical modeling approach. Memory & Cognition, 42, 434–447. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0367-9.
• Campitelli, G., & Labollita, M. (2010). Correlations of cognitive reflection with judgments and choices. Judgment and Decision making, 5, 182–191.
• Engin, A. (2020). The cognitive ability and working memory framework: Interpreting cognitive reflection test results in the domain of the cognitive experiential theory. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 29(1), 227–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-020-00721-6.
• Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732.
• Gervais, W. M., & Norenzayan, A. (2012). Analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief. Science, 336, 493–496. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1215647.
• JASP Team (2024). JASP (Version 0.18.3) [Computer software].
• Juanchich, M., Sirota, M., & Bonnefon, J. (2020). Anxiety-induced miscalculations, more than differential inhibition of intuition, explain the gender gap in cognitive reflection. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 33(4), 427–443. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2165.
• Juanchich, M., Dewberry, C., Sirota, M., & Narendran, S. (2016). Cognitive reflection predicts real-life decision outcomes, but not over and above personality and decision-making styles. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29, 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1875.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098.004.
• 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(4), 361–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.752.
• Mîndril_a, D. (2010). Maximum likelihood (ML) and diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) estimation procedures: A comparison of estimation bias with ordinal and multivariate non- normal data. International Journal for Digital Society, 1(1), 60–66. https://doi.org/10.20533/ijds.2040.2570.2010.0010.
• Otero, I., Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2022). Cognitive reflection, cognitive intelligence, and cognitive abilities: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 90, Article 101614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2021.101614.
• Paxton, J. M., Ungar, L., & Greene, J. D. (2012). Reflection and reasoning in moral judgment. Cognitive Science, 36, 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01210.x.
• Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Seli, P., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2012). Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition, 123, 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.003.
• 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.
• Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011.
• Pennycook, G., & Ross, R. M. (2016). Commentary: Cognitive reflection vs. calculation in decision making. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00009.
• Primi, C., Donati, M. A., Chiesi, F., & Morsanyi, K. (2018). Are there gender differences in cognitive reflection? Invariance and differences related to mathematics. Thinking & Reasoning, 24, 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2017.1387606.
• Sinayev, A., & Peters, E. (2015). Cognitive reflection vs. calculation in decision making. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 532. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00532.
• Sirota, M., & Juanchich, M. (2011). Role of numeracy and cognitive reflection in Bayesian reasoning with natural frequencies. Studia Psychologica, 53, 151–161.
• Sirota, M., & Juanchich, M. (2018). Effect of response format on cognitive reflection: Validating a two-and four-option multiple choice question version of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 2511–2522. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1029-4.
• Sirota, M., Dewberry, C., Juanchich, M., Valus, L., & Marshall, A. C. (2021). Measuring cognitive reflection without maths: Development and validation of the verbal cognitive reflection test. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 34(3), 322–343. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2213.
• Sirota, M., Juanchich, M., & Hagmayer, Y. (2014). Ecological rationality or nested sets? Individual differences in cognitive processing predict Bayesian reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 198–204. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0464-6.
• Sobkow, A., Olszewska, A., & Sirota, M. (2023). The factor structure of cognitive reflection, numeracy, and fluid intelligence: The evidence from the Polish adaptation of the Verbal CRT. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 36(2), e2297. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2297.
• Toplak, M.E., West, R.F. & Stanovich, K.E. (2011). The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Mem Cogn 39, 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 & Reasoning, 20, 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.844729.