medigraphic.com

2017, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Esp Cienc Salud 2017; 20 (2)

Cognitive reflection and Acute Stress: an experimental study with metacognitive difficulty

Tavizón SB, Velasco MPW, González JAI

Language: Spanish
References: 63
Page: 30-39
PDF size: 188.82 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to know the effect of Acute Stress (EA) on Cognitive Reflection (CR) based on the modified cognitive reflection test (CRT-M). The gathered data were compared between experimental and control groups through an ANOVA and between sexes by a t-test, comparing in all cases intuitive, reflexive-correct and reflexive-incorrect answers. Results indicated that the control group stood out with respect to the experimental groups, in which there was an improvement in the CR before the effect of sensory and psychosocial stress, and differences were found between men and women in terms of CR. However, there were no significant differences among the experimental groups. A possible explanation for these results is that the effect of disfluency to which the CRT-M was exposed to may have intervened. Consequently, future research should study this effect more deeply.


REFERENCES

  1. Evans JSBT, Stanovich KE. Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013; 8: 223–241.

  2. Frankish K, Evans JSBT. The dualty of mind: an historical perspective. In: Evans JS, Frankish K, editors. In Two Minds Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009: 1–29.

  3. Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2013: 533

  4. Luo J, Yu R. Follow the heart or the head? The interactive influence model of emotion and cognition. Front Psychol. 2015; 6: 1–15.

  5. Oldrati V, Patricelli J, Colombo B, Antonietti A. The role of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in inhibition mechanism: A study on cognitive reflection test and similar tasks through neural modulation. Neuropsychologia. 2016; 91: 499-508

  6. Azadeh A, Zarrin M, Hamid M. A novel framework for improvement of road accidents considering decisionmaking styles of drivers in a large metropolitan area. Accid Anal Prev. 2016; 87: 17-33

  7. Witteman C, van den Bercken J, Claes L, Godoy A. Assessing rational and intuitive thinking styles. Eur J of Psychol Assess. 2009; 5: 39-47.

  8. Sirota M, Juanchich M, Hagmayer Y. Ecological rationality or nested sets? Individual differences in cognitive processing predict Bayesian reasoning. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013; 21: 198–204.

  9. Newstead SE, Handley SJ, Harley C, Wright H, Farrelly D. Individual differences in deductive reasoning. Q J Exp Psychol. 2004; 57: 33–60.

  10. Joseph VC, Schatz S. Modeling Sociocultural Influences on Decision Making. CRC Press. Florida, 2017: 546.

  11. Selye H. A Syndrome Produced by Diverse Nocuous Agents. Neuropsychiatry Class. 1936; 138: 32.

  12. Dhabhar FS, McEwen BS. Acute Stress Enhances while Chronic Stress Suppresses Cell-Mediated Immunity in Vivo: A Potential Role for Leukocyte Trafficking. Brain Behav Immun. 1997; 11: 286–306.

  13. Contrada R, Baum A. The Handbook of Stress Science: Biology, Psychology, and Health. The Handbook of Stress: Neuropsychological Effects on the Brain. New York: Springer publishing company, 2011: 47-63.

  14. Contrada R, Baum A. The Handbook of Stress Science: Biology, Psychology, and Health. The Handbook of Stress: Neuropsychological Effects on the Brain. New York: Springer publishing company, 2011: 87-100.

  15. Cannon WB. Organization for physiological homeostasis. Physiol Rev. 1929;9: 399–431.

  16. Contrada R, Baum A. The Handbook of Stress Science: Biology, Psychology, and Health. The Handbook of Stress: Neuropsychological Effects on the Brain. New York: Springer publishing company, 2011: 209-220.

  17. Contrada R, Baum A. The Handbook of Stress Science: Biology, Psychology, and Health. The Handbook of Stress: Neuropsychological Effects on the Brain. New York: Springer publishing company, 2011: 501-513

  18. Bechara A, Damasio H, Tranel D, Damasio AR. The Iowa Gambling Task and the somatic marker hypothesis: Some questions and answers. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005;9: 159–62.

  19. Bechara A, Damasio AR. The somatic marker hypothesis: A neural theory of economic decision. Games Econ Behav. 2005;52: 336–72.

  20. Dunn BD, Galton HC, Morgan R, Evans D, Oliver C, Meyer M, et al. Listening to your heart. How interoception shapes emotion experience and intuitive decision making. Psychol Sci. 2010;21: 1835–44.

  21. Dunn BD, Dalgleish T, Lawrence AD. The somatic marker hypothesis: A critical evaluation. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2006;30: 239–71.

  22. Oldrati V, Patricelli J, Colombo B, Antonietti A. The role of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in inhibition mechanism: A study on cognitive reflection test and similar tasks through neuromodulation. Neuropsychologia. 2016;91: 499–508.

  23. Morgado P, Sousa N, Cerqueira JJ. The impact of stress in decision making in the context of uncertainty. J Neurosci Res. 2015;93: 839–47.

  24. Øfsti L. Decision making: The significance of cognition, emotion, and impulsivity. 2011.

  25. Papaeconomou P. Individual differences & instance based decision making: Putting “bounded rationality” to the test. The University of Edinburgh. 2012.

  26. Pfister H-R, Jungermann H, Fischer K. Die Psychologie der Entscheidung. 4th ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; 2017.

  27. van den Bos R, Homberg J, de Visser L. A critical review of sex differences in decision-making tasks: Focus on the Iowa Gambling Task. Behav Brain Res. 2013;238: 95–108.

  28. Lighthall NR, Mather M, Gorlick MA. Acute Stress Increases Sex Differences in Risk Seeking in the Balloon Analogue Risk Task. PLoS One. 2009;4: 1–6.

  29. Porcelli AJ, Delgado MR. Acute stress modulates risk taking in financial decision making. Psychol Sci. 2009;20: 278–83.

  30. Luan S, Leontiev D, Takemura K, Keller N, Tan JH, Smithson M. Decision Making. In: International Journal of Psychology. 2016; 335–55.

  31. Hoffman R, Al’Absi M. The effect of acute stress on subsequent neuropsychological test performance. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2004;19: 497–506.

  32. Lupien SJ, McEwen BS, Gunnar MR, Heim C. Effects of stress throughout the lifespan on the brain, behaviour and cognition. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009;10: 434–45.

  33. Alexander JK, Hillier A, Smith RM, Tivarus ME, Beversdorf DQ. Beta-adrenergic Modulation of Cognitive Flexibility during Stress. J Cogn Neurosci. 2007;19: 468–78.

  34. Frederick S. Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making. J Econ Perspect. 2005;19: 25-42

  35. Baron J, Scott S, Fincher K, Emlen Metz S. Why does the Cognitive Reflection Test (sometimes) predict utilitarian moral judgment (and other things)? J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2015;4: 265–84.

  36. Campitelli G, Gerrans P. Does the cognitive reflection test measure cognitive reflection? A mathematical modeling approach. Mem Cognit. 2014;42: 434–47.

  37. Toplak ME, West RF, Stanovich K. The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Mem Cognit. 2011;39: 1275–89.

  38. Reilly D. Gender, culture, and sex-typed cognitive abilities. PLoS One. 2012;7: 1–16.

  39. Liberali JM, Reyna VF, Furlan S, Stein LM, Pardo ST. Individual Differences in Numeracy and Cognitive Reflection, with Implications for Biases and Fallacies in Probability Judgment. J Behav Decis Mak. 2012;25: 361–81.

  40. Pennycook G, Cheyne JA, Koehler DJ, Fugelsang J a. Is the cognitive reflection test a measure of both reflection and intuition? Behav Res Methods. 2015;48: 341–8.

  41. Campitelli G, Labollita M. Correlations of cognitive reflection with judgments and choices. Judgm Decis Mak. 2010;5: 182–91.

  42. Toplak ME, West RF, Stanovich KE. Real-World Correlates of Performance on Heuristics and Biases Tasks in a Community Sample. J Behav Decis Mak. 2016;30: 541-554

  43. Corgnet B, Espín AM, Hernán-González R. Creativity and cognitive skills among Millennials: Thinking too much and creating too little. Front Psychol. 2016;7: 1–9.

  44. Morsanyi K, Busdraghi C, Primi C. Mathematical anxiety is linked to reduced cognitive reflection: a potential road from discomfort in the mathematics classroom to susceptibility to biases. Behav Brain Funct. 2014;10: 1–13.

  45. Toplak ME, West RF, Stanovich KE. Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Think Reason. 2014;20: 147–68.

  46. Primi C, Morsanyi K, Chiesi F, Donati MA, Hamilton J. The Development and Testing of a New Version of the Cognitive Reflection Test Applying Item Response Theory (IRT). J Behav Decis Mak. 2015;29: 453–69.

  47. Thomson KS, Oppenheimer DM. Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgm Decis Mak. 2016;11: 99–113.

  48. Bosch-Domènech A, Brañas-Garza P, Espín AM. Can exposure to prenatal sex hormones (2D:4D) predict cognitive reflection? Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2014;43: 1–10.

  49. Ring P, Neyse L, David-Barett T, Schmidt U. Gender Differences in Performance Predictions: Evidence from the Cognitive Reflection Test. Front Psychol. 2016;7: 1-7.

  50. Alter AL, Oppenheimer DM, Epley N, Eyre RN. Overcoming Intuition: Metacognitive Difficulty Activates Analytic Reasoning. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007;136: 569–76.

  51. Tinghög G, Andersson D, Bonn C, Johannesson M, Kirchler M, Koppel L, Västfjäll D. Intuition and Moral Decision-Making - The Effect of Time Pressure and Cognitive Load on Moral Judgment and Altruistic Behavior. PLoS One. 2016;11: 1-19.

  52. Dickerson SS, Kemeny ME. Acute Stressors and Cortisol Responses: A Theoretical Integration and Synthesis of Laboratory Research. Psychol Bull. 2004;130: 355–91.

  53. Ising H, C B. Acute and chronic endocrine effects of noise: Review of the research conducted at the Institute for water, soil and air hygiene. Noise Heal. 2000;2: 7–24.

  54. Spreng M. Central nervous system activation by noise. Noise Heal. 2000;2: 49–58.

  55. Kumar S, Forster HM, Bailey P, Griffiths TD. Mapping unpleasantness of sounds to their auditory representation. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008;124: 3810– 7.

  56. Bigert C, Bluhm G, Theorell T. Saliva cortisol - A new approach in noise research to study stress effects. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2005;208: 227–30.

  57. Kahneman D, Frederick S. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. Heuristics Biases Psychol Intuitive Judgm. 2002; 49–81.

  58. Simonovic B, Stupple EJN, Gale M, Sheffield D. Stress and Risky Decision Making: Cognitive Reflection, Emotional Learning or Both. J Behav Decis Mak. 2016; 30: 1–8.

  59. Kühl T, Eitel A. Effects of disfluency on cognitive and metacognitive processes and outcomes. Metacognition Learn. 2016; 11: 1–13.

  60. Spada MM, Nikčević A V., Moneta GB, Wells A. Metacognition, perceived stress, and negative emotion. Pers Individ Dif. 2008; 44: 1172–1181.

  61. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014; 111: 8410– 8415.

  62. Shiffrin RM, Schneider W. Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychol Rev. 1977; 84: 127–90.

  63. Duncko R, Johnson L, K M, C G. Working memory performance after acute exposure to the cold pressor stress in healthy volunteers. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2009; 91: 377–81.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com