Cognitive Reflection Assessment
Cognitive Reflection Test paradigm (Frederick, 2005); all 12 items are original NOESIS creationsのNOESIS適応版
~12 min · 12 問 · 無料の簡易レポート
Each of these twelve problems has an answer that jumps out at you, and that answer is wrong. Getting it right takes noticing the impulse, distrusting it, and checking. That skill, cognitive reflection, is what this assessment measures: not how much you know, but whether you verify what feels obvious. The paradigm comes from Shane Frederick's Cognitive Reflection Test (2005), the research behind the System 1 and System 2 vocabulary: a fast, automatic mind proposes an answer, and a slower, deliberate mind either checks it or waves it through. Frederick's three original problems became so famous that they stopped working; by 2016, studies found that about half of online respondents had already seen them, and the answers sit one search away. That is why every item here is original. NOESIS wrote twelve new problems in the same paradigm, each built around a different trap: misleading averages, exponential growth, stacked discounts, sunk costs, and eight more. You will not have seen them before, which is exactly the condition the measure needs. The honest counterpart: new items carry no independent validation studies yet, and your result is a plain count of correct answers out of 12, not a normed percentile. The full report shows every problem again with your answer, the correct answer, and a short explanation of how the trap works. Missing an item and then seeing the mechanism laid bare is where this format earns its keep.
Twelve traps you have not met before, and afterwards the mechanism of every one of them.
- See how often you catch the intuitive wrong answer before it becomes your final answer, across twelve traps you have not met before. Read, for every item, what the lure was and how the correct path goes. Take the System 1 and System 2 distinction home as something you experienced rather than something you read about.
登録不要で開始できます。簡易レポートは最後に無料で提供されます。 完全レポートは$9.90です。必要なときにお支払いください。
このテストで測定されるもの
Cognitive reflection
Count of the twelve trap problems answered correctly. Each item plants a strong intuitive wrong answer; a point is earned only when that pull is noticed, checked and overridden. A plain count out of 12, not a normed or converted score.
Intuition led
Checked sometimes
Reflective
あなたの結果はこれらのバンドのいずれかに該当します。
クリックからレポートまで。
手順はシンプルです：回答し、システムが計算し、結果が表示されます。事前登録不要、フォーム不要、待ち時間なし。
- 1
「無料で始める」をクリック
開始時に登録は不要です。結果を保存したいときに、最後に本人確認を行います。テストはすぐに始まります。
- 2
質問に答える
Multiple choice, 4 options, one correct answer per item。進捗バーが表示されます。本人確認後は、どのデバイスからでも中断・再開可能です。
- 3
簡易レポートを受け取る
即座に無料で提供。各次元のテキスト要約と、高・中・低の指標が含まれます。
- 4
完全レポートが必要か決める
簡易レポートだけでも十分な価値があります。完全レポートには、パーセンタイル、基準比較、チャート、応用的推奨、検証可能な修了証が追加されます。
- 5
統合チャットで探求する
AIとあなたの結果について対話できます。プロフィールがキャリアにどう活かせるか、高いスコアの意味、他のテストとの比較などを尋ねられます。
簡易レポートはすぐにあなたのものに。完全レポートは必要に応じて。
| 無料版と有料版の比較 | 簡易レポート (常に無料) | 完全レポート ($9.90) |
|---|---|---|
| 回答に基づいて生成された各次元の解釈テキスト | ✓ | ✓ |
| 各次元の素点スコア | ✓ | ✓ |
| 1段落の概要 | ✓ | ✓ |
| 簡易レポートの全内容を、各次元3〜5段落に拡張 | — | ✓ |
| 各次元のパーセンタイル（基準群との比較） | — | ✓ |
| アクセシブルなデータテーブル付きの次元間チャート | — | ✓ |
| キャリア、人間関係、セルフケアへの応用的推奨 | — | ✓ |
| 公開検証とPDFダウンロード付き修了証 | — | ✓ |
- ✓簡易レポートの全内容を、各次元3〜5段落に拡張
- ✓各次元のパーセンタイル（基準群との比較）
- ✓キャリア、人間関係、セルフケアへの応用的推奨
- ✓公開検証とPDFダウンロード付き修了証
テスト完了後、簡易レポートの先に進みたい場合のみお支払いいただきます。
PIX（即時）またはクレジットカードでお支払い。レポートへのアクセスは1年間。その後、レポートは読み取り専用モードで閲覧可能です。
このツールを信頼できる理由。
Built in the cognitive reflection paradigm introduced by Frederick (2005), this assessment uses 12 original NOESIS problems, each engineered around a different trap: misleading averages, exponential growth, stacked discounts, sunk costs and eight more. Every item offers four options, exactly one of them correct and one of them the dominant intuitive lure, and the score is a plain count of correct answers from 0 to 12, read through three NOESIS bands. There is no time limit and no norm set: the items are original, so no published calibration applies to them, and the reference values in the classic literature describe the classic instruments. The full report shows every problem again with your answer, the correct one, and how the trap works. The items are original rather than borrowed for a measurable reason: by 2016 about half of online respondents had already seen the famous problems, and prior exposure inflates results. What is measured is the disposition to check an intuition, which correlates with cognitive ability without being an intelligence test.
- 著者:
- Shane Frederick (paradigm); NOESIS (items)
- 年:
- 2005
表示されている信頼性、基準、カットオフは、元のツール（Cognitive Reflection Test paradigm (Frederick, 2005); all 12 items are original NOESIS creations）のものです。
このNOESIS適応版はまだ独立した検証を受けていません。
- Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25-42. See also Toplak, West & Stanovich (2014); Thomson & Oppenheimer (2016); Primi, Morsanyi, Chiesi, Donati & Hamilton (2016); Sirota & Juanchich (2018).
このテストの背景にある理論。
Dual-Process Theory of Reasoning
Framework describing reasoning as the interaction of two modes: a fast, automatic process that proposes an answer, and a slow, deliberate process that either checks the proposal or waves it through. Frederick (2005) made the second one measurable with problems engineered so that the intuitive answer is confidently wrong, so a correct response requires noticing the pull, distrusting it and verifying. The disposition this measures, cognitive reflection, correlates with cognitive ability without being it: the items demand almost no arithmetic and no knowledge, and errors cluster on the planted answer rather than spreading at random. The paradigm's own central threat to validity is prior exposure — the classic items became so famous that by 2016 roughly half of online respondents had already seen them.
この理論について詳しく見る →ターゲット
Anyone curious whether they check their first impulse or trust it: puzzle lovers, readers of behavioral economics, and people who make quick calls all day and want to know what that speed costs.
推奨年齢: 18+
レポートが答える質問。
When the obvious answer appears, do you check it or ship it?
Read the result as a count of caught impulses, 0 to 12. High means the planted lure rarely became your final answer: you paused, distrusted, verified. Low means the traps mostly worked, which is the ordinary human default and says nothing about intelligence. The band matters less than the pattern in the answer key: most people miss one particular family of traps, percentages, averages or scaling, and finding out which family is yours is the part you can actually use.
最も効果的な方。
The behavioral economics reader
You know the theory: a fast mind proposes, a slow mind checks. But the famous demonstration problems stopped working on you the day you read about them. Twelve problems you have never seen give you back the real experience of being measured, instead of a memory quiz about answers you already know.
The confident quick thinker
Fast answers are your reputation, and most of the time they are right. This is a quarter of an hour against twelve problems built to punish exactly that speed. Either you finish vindicated, or you find the one family of traps that reliably gets you. Both results are worth having.
The second-guesser
You already distrust your first impulse, sometimes to a fault. A result here separates useful checking from anxious rechecking: if you land high, your slow habits are buying real accuracy. The report also shows on which kinds of problem the double-checking actually changed the outcome.
よくある質問
Is this an IQ test?
No. It measures one narrow thing: the tendency to check an intuitive answer before committing to it. In the research literature this tendency correlates with cognitive ability measures, but a 12-item multiple-choice assessment is not an intelligence test and your result is not an IQ. A low count here means the traps worked on you that day, nothing more.
Can I take it again?
You can, but the second result means something different. These items lose part of their bite once you have seen the explanations: you are no longer suppressing an intuition, you are remembering an answer. Prior exposure inflates results; that is exactly what happened to the classic reflection problems over two decades of fame, and it is why we wrote new ones. Treat a retake as revision, not as a fresh measurement.
Why did you not use the famous original problems?
Two reasons. First, the classic items are among the most widely circulated puzzles in the world; studies in 2016 found that about half of online respondents had already seen them, and prior exposure measurably inflates results. Charging you for a score on problems you may already know would be charging you for noise. Second, those items sit in journal articles under publisher copyright, with no license for commercial reproduction. Original items solve both problems at once.
Does a low score mean I am not smart?
No. It means that on these twelve problems, the planted intuitive answers got past your checking more often than not, which is the most common human outcome. People with strong formal training fall for these when tired or rushed. The useful part of a low count is the answer key: each explanation shows the exact move the trap made, and that pattern can be learned.
Is there a time limit?
No. Reflection is the whole point, so nothing here pushes you to answer fast. Take the time to feel the pull of the obvious answer and then check it. What we do ask is that you answer without a calculator and without searching: the arithmetic is deliberately light, and an outside lookup would turn a reflection measure into a typing exercise.
Can a company use this to screen candidates?
We advise against it and flag this test as a poor fit for hiring decisions. It runs unsupervised, the answer to any reflection-style problem is searchable, and a motivated candidate can prepare. It works as self-knowledge and as a starting point for talking about decision habits on a team, not as a selection gate.
このテストは情報提供を目的とした自己理解のためのツールです。心理学的または臨床的な診断を構成するものではなく、資格を持つ専門家による評価に代わるものでもありません。レポートにはテキスト生成に使用されたAIモデルが示されます。
All twelve items are original NOESIS creations in the cognitive reflection paradigm introduced by Frederick, S. (2005), Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25-42. No item reproduces or adapts the classic CRT item sets (CRT-3, CRT-7, CRT-2, CRT-Long), whose questions and answers circulate publicly. © 2026 NOESIS. All rights reserved.