Slower is not always better: Response-time evidence clarifies the limited role of miserly information processing in the Cognitive Reflection Test
We report a study examining the role of 'cognitive miserliness' as a determinant of poor performance on the standard three-item Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT). The cognitive miserliness hypothesis proposes that people often respond incorrectly on CRT items because of an unwillingness to g...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2017-11, Vol.12 (11), p.e0186404-e0186404 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0186404 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 11 |
| container_start_page | e0186404 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 12 |
| creator | Stupple, Edward J N Pitchford, Melanie Ball, Linden J Hunt, Thomas E Steel, Richard |
| description | We report a study examining the role of 'cognitive miserliness' as a determinant of poor performance on the standard three-item Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT). The cognitive miserliness hypothesis proposes that people often respond incorrectly on CRT items because of an unwillingness to go beyond default, heuristic processing and invest time and effort in analytic, reflective processing. Our analysis (N = 391) focused on people's response times to CRT items to determine whether predicted associations are evident between miserly thinking and the generation of incorrect, intuitive answers. Evidence indicated only a weak correlation between CRT response times and accuracy. Item-level analyses also failed to demonstrate predicted response-time differences between correct analytic and incorrect intuitive answers for two of the three CRT items. We question whether participants who give incorrect intuitive answers on the CRT can legitimately be termed cognitive misers and whether the three CRT items measure the same general construct. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0186404 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1959661616</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A513148885</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_b7d207272dfd4b5c9f2e12ac2bb2f64f</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A513148885</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-bc91475ca0160c6816a75b20691b79cab21e57852112035247a31a85cf98d5a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk99q2zAUxs3YWLtubzA2wWBsF8kk2ZKtXQxK2J9AodCG3QpZPk4UZCuTlHR5jL3x5CQtyejF0IXN8e_7jvVJJ8teEzwmeUk-Ld3a98qOV66HMSYVL3DxJDsnIqcjTnH-9Oj9LHsRwhJjllecP8_OqMBCVAU-z_7cWncHHpmAeheRsndqG1ANMYL_jG4gJPsAo2g6QLAxDfQakLbKm9ZAQHEByJrORGiQdxaQa1FnAni7RaZvne9UNK5HK-80hGD6eSrvVBM37000G0hNWgt6h80gxJfZs1bZAK8Oz4ts9u3rbPJjdHX9fTq5vBppLmgc1VqQomRaYcKx5hXhqmQ1xVyQuhRa1ZQAKytGCUkBMFqUKieqYroVVcNUfpG93duurAvyEGaQRDDBOUkrEdM90Ti1lCtvOuW30ikjdwXn51L5aLQFWZcNxSUtadM2Rc20aCkQqjSta9ryok1eXw7d1nUHjYY-emVPTE-_9GYh524jGeeiKKtk8OFg4N2vdYpJppg1WKt6cOvhvzmnRZHnA_ruH_Tx3R2ouUobGM4q9dWDqbxkJCdFVVUsUeNHqLQa6IxON681qX4i-HgiSEyE33Gu1iHI6e3N_7PXP0_Z90fsApSNi-Dserg24RQs9qD2LgQP7UPIBMthcO7TkMPgyMPgJNmb4wN6EN1PSv4XXfkVHA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1959661616</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Slower is not always better: Response-time evidence clarifies the limited role of miserly information processing in the Cognitive Reflection Test</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Stupple, Edward J N ; Pitchford, Melanie ; Ball, Linden J ; Hunt, Thomas E ; Steel, Richard</creator><contributor>Antonietti, Alessandro</contributor><creatorcontrib>Stupple, Edward J N ; Pitchford, Melanie ; Ball, Linden J ; Hunt, Thomas E ; Steel, Richard ; Antonietti, Alessandro</creatorcontrib><description>We report a study examining the role of 'cognitive miserliness' as a determinant of poor performance on the standard three-item Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT). The cognitive miserliness hypothesis proposes that people often respond incorrectly on CRT items because of an unwillingness to go beyond default, heuristic processing and invest time and effort in analytic, reflective processing. Our analysis (N = 391) focused on people's response times to CRT items to determine whether predicted associations are evident between miserly thinking and the generation of incorrect, intuitive answers. Evidence indicated only a weak correlation between CRT response times and accuracy. Item-level analyses also failed to demonstrate predicted response-time differences between correct analytic and incorrect intuitive answers for two of the three CRT items. We question whether participants who give incorrect intuitive answers on the CRT can legitimately be termed cognitive misers and whether the three CRT items measure the same general construct.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186404</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29099840</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Bias ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Cognition ; Cognition & reasoning ; Cognitive ability ; Cognitive tests ; Computer and Information Sciences ; Data collection ; Data processing ; Decision making ; Heuristic ; Humans ; Information processing ; Physical Sciences ; Rationality ; Reaction Time ; Reflection ; Social Sciences ; System theory</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2017-11, Vol.12 (11), p.e0186404-e0186404</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2017 Stupple et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2017 Stupple et al 2017 Stupple et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-bc91475ca0160c6816a75b20691b79cab21e57852112035247a31a85cf98d5a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-bc91475ca0160c6816a75b20691b79cab21e57852112035247a31a85cf98d5a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8545-9504</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5669478/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5669478/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79600,79601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29099840$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Antonietti, Alessandro</contributor><creatorcontrib>Stupple, Edward J N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pitchford, Melanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ball, Linden J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hunt, Thomas E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steel, Richard</creatorcontrib><title>Slower is not always better: Response-time evidence clarifies the limited role of miserly information processing in the Cognitive Reflection Test</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>We report a study examining the role of 'cognitive miserliness' as a determinant of poor performance on the standard three-item Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT). The cognitive miserliness hypothesis proposes that people often respond incorrectly on CRT items because of an unwillingness to go beyond default, heuristic processing and invest time and effort in analytic, reflective processing. Our analysis (N = 391) focused on people's response times to CRT items to determine whether predicted associations are evident between miserly thinking and the generation of incorrect, intuitive answers. Evidence indicated only a weak correlation between CRT response times and accuracy. Item-level analyses also failed to demonstrate predicted response-time differences between correct analytic and incorrect intuitive answers for two of the three CRT items. We question whether participants who give incorrect intuitive answers on the CRT can legitimately be termed cognitive misers and whether the three CRT items measure the same general construct.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Cognition</subject><subject>Cognition & reasoning</subject><subject>Cognitive ability</subject><subject>Cognitive tests</subject><subject>Computer and Information Sciences</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Data processing</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Heuristic</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Information processing</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Rationality</subject><subject>Reaction Time</subject><subject>Reflection</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>System theory</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk99q2zAUxs3YWLtubzA2wWBsF8kk2ZKtXQxK2J9AodCG3QpZPk4UZCuTlHR5jL3x5CQtyejF0IXN8e_7jvVJJ8teEzwmeUk-Ld3a98qOV66HMSYVL3DxJDsnIqcjTnH-9Oj9LHsRwhJjllecP8_OqMBCVAU-z_7cWncHHpmAeheRsndqG1ANMYL_jG4gJPsAo2g6QLAxDfQakLbKm9ZAQHEByJrORGiQdxaQa1FnAni7RaZvne9UNK5HK-80hGD6eSrvVBM37000G0hNWgt6h80gxJfZs1bZAK8Oz4ts9u3rbPJjdHX9fTq5vBppLmgc1VqQomRaYcKx5hXhqmQ1xVyQuhRa1ZQAKytGCUkBMFqUKieqYroVVcNUfpG93duurAvyEGaQRDDBOUkrEdM90Ti1lCtvOuW30ikjdwXn51L5aLQFWZcNxSUtadM2Rc20aCkQqjSta9ryok1eXw7d1nUHjYY-emVPTE-_9GYh524jGeeiKKtk8OFg4N2vdYpJppg1WKt6cOvhvzmnRZHnA_ruH_Tx3R2ouUobGM4q9dWDqbxkJCdFVVUsUeNHqLQa6IxON681qX4i-HgiSEyE33Gu1iHI6e3N_7PXP0_Z90fsApSNi-Dserg24RQs9qD2LgQP7UPIBMthcO7TkMPgyMPgJNmb4wN6EN1PSv4XXfkVHA</recordid><startdate>20171103</startdate><enddate>20171103</enddate><creator>Stupple, Edward J N</creator><creator>Pitchford, Melanie</creator><creator>Ball, Linden J</creator><creator>Hunt, Thomas E</creator><creator>Steel, Richard</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8545-9504</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20171103</creationdate><title>Slower is not always better: Response-time evidence clarifies the limited role of miserly information processing in the Cognitive Reflection Test</title><author>Stupple, Edward J N ; Pitchford, Melanie ; Ball, Linden J ; Hunt, Thomas E ; Steel, Richard</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-bc91475ca0160c6816a75b20691b79cab21e57852112035247a31a85cf98d5a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Cognition</topic><topic>Cognition & reasoning</topic><topic>Cognitive ability</topic><topic>Cognitive tests</topic><topic>Computer and Information Sciences</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Data processing</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Heuristic</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Information processing</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Rationality</topic><topic>Reaction Time</topic><topic>Reflection</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>System theory</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Stupple, Edward J N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pitchford, Melanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ball, Linden J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hunt, Thomas E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steel, Richard</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Stupple, Edward J N</au><au>Pitchford, Melanie</au><au>Ball, Linden J</au><au>Hunt, Thomas E</au><au>Steel, Richard</au><au>Antonietti, Alessandro</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Slower is not always better: Response-time evidence clarifies the limited role of miserly information processing in the Cognitive Reflection Test</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2017-11-03</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>e0186404</spage><epage>e0186404</epage><pages>e0186404-e0186404</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>We report a study examining the role of 'cognitive miserliness' as a determinant of poor performance on the standard three-item Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT). The cognitive miserliness hypothesis proposes that people often respond incorrectly on CRT items because of an unwillingness to go beyond default, heuristic processing and invest time and effort in analytic, reflective processing. Our analysis (N = 391) focused on people's response times to CRT items to determine whether predicted associations are evident between miserly thinking and the generation of incorrect, intuitive answers. Evidence indicated only a weak correlation between CRT response times and accuracy. Item-level analyses also failed to demonstrate predicted response-time differences between correct analytic and incorrect intuitive answers for two of the three CRT items. We question whether participants who give incorrect intuitive answers on the CRT can legitimately be termed cognitive misers and whether the three CRT items measure the same general construct.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>29099840</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0186404</doi><tpages>e0186404</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8545-9504</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2017-11, Vol.12 (11), p.e0186404-e0186404 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1959661616 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Analysis Bias Biology and Life Sciences Cognition Cognition & reasoning Cognitive ability Cognitive tests Computer and Information Sciences Data collection Data processing Decision making Heuristic Humans Information processing Physical Sciences Rationality Reaction Time Reflection Social Sciences System theory |
| title | Slower is not always better: Response-time evidence clarifies the limited role of miserly information processing in the Cognitive Reflection Test |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T10%3A25%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Slower%20is%20not%20always%20better:%20Response-time%20evidence%20clarifies%20the%20limited%20role%20of%20miserly%20information%20processing%20in%20the%20Cognitive%20Reflection%20Test&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Stupple,%20Edward%20J%20N&rft.date=2017-11-03&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=e0186404&rft.epage=e0186404&rft.pages=e0186404-e0186404&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0186404&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA513148885%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1959661616&rft_id=info:pmid/29099840&rft_galeid=A513148885&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_b7d207272dfd4b5c9f2e12ac2bb2f64f&rfr_iscdi=true |