IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intell/v95y2022ics0160289622000861.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analytic thinking outruns fluid reasoning in explaining rejection of pseudoscience, paranormal, and conspiracist beliefs

Author

Listed:
  • Jastrzębski, Jan
  • Chuderski, Adam

Abstract

Around one third of people across populations hold beliefs in epistemically unwarranted claims and theories. Why this effect is so strong remains elusive. In three studies (total N = 827), we clarified the relationships of fluid reasoning ability, analytic thinking style (indexed by non-intuitiveness and open-mindedness), and unwarranted beliefs in pseudoscience, paranormal phenomena, and conspiracy theories. Fluid reasoning predicted about 11% of variance in rejection of pseudoscience, but only 4% – in paranormal beliefs, and less than 2.5% – in conspiracist beliefs. By contrast, analytic thinking substantially predicted rejection of all the three kinds of beliefs, explaining 37% variance in pseudoscience and around 20% variance in paranormal and conspiracist beliefs. A novel finding indicated that fluid reasoning and analytic thinking predicted rejection of pseudoscience in an over-additive interaction. Fluid reasoning and analytic thinking explained the common variance shared by unwarranted beliefs, but not the belief-specific variance. Their relationships with unwarranted beliefs were stronger for males than for females. Overall, the three studies suggest that analytic thinking is more important than cognitive ability for adopting epistemically supported world-view.

Suggested Citation

  • Jastrzębski, Jan & Chuderski, Adam, 2022. "Analytic thinking outruns fluid reasoning in explaining rejection of pseudoscience, paranormal, and conspiracist beliefs," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:95:y:2022:i:c:s0160289622000861
    DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2022.101705
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289622000861
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.intell.2022.101705?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gordon Pennycook & Robert M Ross & Derek J Koehler & Jonathan A Fugelsang, 2016. "Atheists and Agnostics Are More Reflective than Religious Believers: Four Empirical Studies and a Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, April.
    2. Otero, Inmaculada & Salgado, Jesús F. & Moscoso, Silvia, 2022. "Cognitive reflection, cognitive intelligence, and cognitive abilities: A meta-analysis," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:4:p:476-498 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:3:p:260-267 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brandts, Jordi & Busom, Isabel & Lopez-Mayan, Cristina & Panadés, Judith, 2022. "Dispelling misconceptions about economics," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    2. Steffen Ahrens & Ciril Bosch-Rosa & Thomas Meissner, 2022. "Intertemporal consumption and debt aversion: a replication and extension," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(1), pages 56-84, December.
    3. Nicolas Eber & Patrick Roger & Tristan Roger, 2024. "Finance and intelligence: An overview of the literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 503-554, April.
    4. Dürlinger, Florian & Fries, Jonathan & Yanagida, Takuya & Pietschnig, Jakob, 2023. "Religiosity does not prevent cognitive declines: Cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence from the Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    5. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    6. David J. Cooper & Krista Saral & Marie Claire Villeval, 2021. "Why Join a Team?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6980-6997, November.
    7. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2019. "Digital Communication and Swift Trust," Post-Print halshs-02409314, HAL.
    8. Francesco Capozza & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2021. "Studying Information Acquisition in the Field: A Practical Guide and Review," CEBI working paper series 21-15, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    9. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    10. Prokudina, Elena & Renneboog, Luc & Tobler, Philippe, 2015. "Does Confidence Predict Out-of-Domain Effort?," Discussion Paper 2015-055, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    11. Noussair, C.N. & Tucker, S. & Xu, Yilong, 2014. "A Future Market Reduces Bubbles but Allows Greater Profit for More Sophisticated Traders," Other publications TiSEM 43ded173-9eee-48a4-8a15-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    12. Francis Bloch & Bhaskar Dutta & Stéphane Robin & Min Zhu, 2016. "The formation of partnerships in social networks," Post-Print halshs-01421347, HAL.
    13. Besedes, Tibor & Deck, Cary & Quintanar, Sarah & Sarangi, Sudipta & Shor, Mikhael, 2011. "Free-Riding and Performance in Collaborative and Non-Collaborative Groups," MPRA Paper 33948, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Jorrat, Diego & Alfonso-Costillo, Antonio & Espín, Antonio M. & Garcia, Teresa & Kovářík, Jaromír, 2020. "Exposure to the Covid-19 pandemic and generosity," MPRA Paper 103389, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Albano, Gian Luigi & Cipollone, Angela & Paolo, Roberto Di & Ponti, Giovanni & Sparro, Marco, 2024. "Scoring rules in experimental procurement," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    16. Goswami, Indranil & Urminsky, Oleg, 2021. "Don’t fear the meter: How longer time limits bias managers to prefer hiring with flat fee compensation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 42-58.
    17. Marco Angrisani & Marco Cipriani & Antonio Guarino, 2022. "Strategic Sophistication and Trading Profits: An Experiment with Professional Traders," Staff Reports 1044, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    18. Corgnet, Brice & DeSantis, Mark & Porter, David, 2020. "The distribution of information and the price efficiency of markets," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    19. Anna Louisa Merkel & Johannes Lohse, 2019. "Is fairness intuitive? An experiment accounting for subjective utility differences under time pressure," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 24-50, March.
    20. Michalis Drouvelis & Julian C. Jamison, 2015. "Selecting public goods institutions: Who likes to punish and reward?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(2), pages 501-534, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:95:y:2022:i:c:s0160289622000861. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligence .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.