Systems 1 and 2 thinking processes and cognitive reflection testing in medical students

Abstract

Background: Diagnostic decision-making is made through a combination of Systems 1 (intuition or pattern-recognition) and Systems 2 (analytic) thinking. The purpose of this study was to use the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) to evaluate and compare the level of Systems 1 and 2 thinking among medical students in pre-clinical and clinical programs.Methods: The CRT is a three-question test designed to measure the ability of respondents to activate metacognitive processes and switch to System 2 (analytic) thinking where System 1 (intuitive) thinking would lead them astray. Each CRT question has a correct analytical (System 2) answer and an incorrect intuitive (System 1) answer. A group of medical students in Years 2 & 3 (pre-clinical) and Years 4 (in clinical practice) of a 5-year medical degree were studied.Results: Ten percent (13/128) of students had the intuitive answers to the three questions (suggesting they generally relied on System 1 thinking) while almost half (44%) answered all three correctly (indicating full analytical, System 2 thinking). Only 3-13% had incorrect answers (i.e. that were neither the analytical nor the intuitive responses). Non-native English speaking students (n = 11) had a lower mean number of correct answers compared to native English speakers (n = 117: 1.0 s 2.12 respectfully: p < 0.01). As students progressed through questions 1 to 3, the percentage of correct System 2 answers increased and the percentage of intuitive answers decreased in both the pre-clinical and clinical students. Conclusions: Up to half of the medical students demonstrated full or partial reliance on System 1 (intuitive) thinking in response to these analytical questions. While their CRT performance has no claims to make as to their future expertise as clinicians, the test may be used in helping students to understand the importance of awareness and regulation of their thinking processes in clinical practice.

Clinical Teaching: An Evidence-based Guide to Best Practices from the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors

“…The OMP model was initially described in 1992 by Neher and colleagues as a method to efficiently balance teaching while simultaneously providing effective patient care. 84 This model is particularly well-suited for the busy ED environment. The OMP is a learner-centered model of instruction that is based on five microskills, as described in Table 4.…”

The colorectal surgeon's personality may influence the rectal anastomotic decision

“…Almost all surgeons were completely intuitive in their thinking style, which could be potentially favourable in their day-to-day working environment, where quick, multiple and important decisions are made on ward rounds, outpatient clinics and theatre operating rooms. Indeed, undergraduate medical school teaching may encourage such thinking processes; previous reported work on 128 medical students who completed the CRT found that, compared with senior medical students, preclinical students displayed higher levels of slow, rational type 2 thinking [29]. The higher levels of conscientiousness and emotional stability reported in this group of surgeons alongside low alexithymia challenge the perceived 'surgical personality' stereotype of arrogance, impatience, extraversion and being unfriendly and distant [30].…”

‘What … you can't tell left from right?’ Medical students’ experiences in making laterality decisions

“…by using system 2 thinking, which is more methodical and slower than system 1 thinking, which is faster and more imitative). 34 Although beyond the remit of this study, further research is important to establish whether such variation in LRD ability is in any way linked to laterality errors and adverse patient events.…”