Is the Illusory Truth Effect Robust to Individual Differences in Cognitive Ability, Need for Cognitive Closure, and Cognitive Style?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas De keersmaecker ◽  
Arne Roets ◽  
Gordon Pennycook ◽  
David G. Rand
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Ability ◽  
Cognitive Style ◽  
Cognitive Closure ◽  
Need For Cognitive Closure ◽  
Truth Effect ◽  
Illusory Truth Effect

scholarly journals Investigating the robustness of the illusory truth effect across individual differences in cognitive ability, need for cognitive closure, and cognitive style

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas De keersmaecker ◽  
David Alan Dunning ◽  
Gordon Pennycook ◽  
David Gertler Rand ◽  
Carmen Sanchez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Ability ◽  
Cognitive Style ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Cognitive Measures ◽  
Analytic Thinking ◽  
Cognitive Closure ◽  
Need For Cognitive Closure ◽  
Truth Effect ◽  
Illusory Truth Effect

People are more inclined to believe that information is true if they have encountered it before. Little is known about whether this illusory truth effect is influenced by individual differences in cognition. In seven studies (combined N = 2196), using both trivia statements (Studies 1-6) and partisan news headlines (Study 7), we investigate moderation by three factors that have been shown to play a critical role in epistemic processes: cognitive ability (Study 1, 2, 5), need for cognitive closure (Study 1), and cognitive style, that is, reliance on intuitive versus analytic thinking (Study 1, 3-7). All studies showed a significant illusory truth effect, but there was no evidence for moderation by any of the cognitive measures across studies. These results indicate that the illusory truth effect is robust to individual differences in cognitive ability, need for cognitive closure, and cognitive style.

scholarly journals Investigating the Robustness of the Illusory Truth Effect Across Individual Differences in Cognitive Ability, Need for Cognitive Closure, and Cognitive Style

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 204-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas De keersmaecker ◽  
David Dunning ◽  
Gordon Pennycook ◽  
David G. Rand ◽  
Carmen Sanchez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Ability ◽  
Cognitive Style ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Cognitive Measures ◽  
Analytic Thinking ◽  
Cognitive Closure ◽  
Need For Cognitive Closure ◽  
Truth Effect ◽  
Illusory Truth Effect

People are more inclined to believe that information is true if they have encountered it before. Little is known about whether this illusory truth effect is influenced by individual differences in cognition. In seven studies (combined N = 2,196), using both trivia statements (Studies 1-6) and partisan news headlines (Study 7), we investigate moderation by three factors that have been shown to play a critical role in epistemic processes: cognitive ability (Studies 1, 2, 5), need for cognitive closure (Study 1), and cognitive style, that is, reliance on intuitive versus analytic thinking (Studies 1, 3-7). All studies showed a significant illusory truth effect, but there was no evidence for moderation by any of the cognitive measures across studies. These results indicate that the illusory truth effect is robust to individual differences in cognitive ability, need for cognitive closure, and cognitive style.

scholarly journals The Bright Homunculus in our Head: Individual Differences in Intuitive Sensitivity to Logical Validity

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omid Ghasemi ◽  
Simon Handley ◽  
Stephanie Howarth
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Ability ◽  
Cognitive Style ◽  
Processing Time ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Human Reasoning ◽  
Logical Validity ◽  
Process Theories ◽  
Dual Process Theories ◽  
Deliberative Reasoning

Classic dual process theories of human reasoning attribute explicit reasoning to effortful, deliberative thinking. According to these models, intuitive processes lack any access to the formal rules of logic and probability and hence rely exclusively on superficial problem features to determine a response. However, in recent years, researchers have demonstrated that reasoners are able to solve simple logical or probabilistic problems relatively automatically, a capability which has been called ‘logical intuition’. In four experiments, we instructed participants to judge the validity (Experiment 1 and 4), likeability (Experiment 1, 2, and 3) and brightness (Experiment 2, 3, and 4) of the conclusion to several reasoning problems. Participants were also asked to complete a range of individual differences measures, drawing on cognitive ability and cognitive style, in order to evaluate the extent to which ‘logical intuitions’ were linked to measures of deliberative reasoning. The results showed that participants judged the conclusion of logically valid statements to be more valid, more likable and more physically bright. Participants with higher cognitive ability and unlimited processing time showed greater effects of logical validity in their liking judgments. However, these effects were absent in the brightness tasks, suggesting that logic effects observed under instructions to judge conclusion brightness are a purer measure of ‘logical intuition’. We discuss the implications of our findings for recent dual process theories of human reasoning.

scholarly journals Supportive guidance methods for wiki-based learning and knowledge construction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sven Heimbuch
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Collaborative Learning ◽  
Knowledge Construction ◽  
Discussion Forums ◽  
Computer Supported Collaborative Learning ◽  
Collaboration Scripts ◽  
Cognitive Closure ◽  
Need For Cognitive Closure ◽  
Learning Success ◽  
Collaboration Script

Wikis are a special representative of socio-technical systems that are increasingly used for the collaborative construction of knowledge and furthermore for individual and collaborative learning. The basic design of wiki systems enables users to generate content as articles and as well to discuss about subject matters on corresponding discussion forums in the article background, the so-called talk pages. Building upon prevailing theories and previous research on knowledge building with wikis, and more broadly computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) in general, this dissertation investigated several effects of added supplemental scaffolding measures for wiki-based learning on processes and outcomes. Specifically, this work focused on (1) the effectiveness and efficiency implicit guidance approaches for wiki talk pages, (2) the effects of two distinct collaboration scripts as explicit guidance for knowledge construction with wikis, and (3) the relevance of specific learning-related individual differences for collaborative learning with wikis. Overall, five empirical studies have been conducted as part of this dissertation. Study 1 examined the effects of added controversy awareness highlights for wiki discussions. Results of the experiment showed that added highlights for controversial discussions directly affect individual selection and reading behaviour, as well as indirectly and to a lesser extent the learning outcomes and wiki contribution quality. Study 2 examined whether visualisations of author expertise and community-rating implicitly affect the user perception of controversial discussions in wikis. Results showed that if additional author information is visualised, it is much more likely that readers of wiki discussions follow an assumed expert’s argumentation. Studies 3 and 4 both examined effects of two distinct collaboration script approaches. The first script was derived from Wikipedia, whereas the second script is a self-developed script that was inspired by related empirical research. Results showed that the alternative script proposal is more beneficial for perspective-taking and integration of opposing evidence, as well as for individual learning success and the quality of collaboratively edited articles. Study 5 examined the effects of the controversy awareness highlights and the alternative collaboration script in interaction with individual differences of the Need for Cognitive Closure. This construct is relevant for the understanding of how people process ambiguous information that are likely to be found in controversial discussions. Results showed that persons with a high Need for Cognitive Closure benefit more, in terms of learning success, from the controversy awareness highlights for implicit guidance, whereas persons with a low Need for Cognitive Closure benefit more from the collaboration script as explicit guidance. This study series extends the empirical base of research on wiki-based knowledge construction and learning processes with investigations of supplemental different guidance measures and the consideration of individual differences.

EXPRESS: The Bright Homunculus in our Head: Individual Differences in Intuitive Sensitivity to Logical Validity

2021 ◽  
pp. 174702182110446
Author(s):  
Omid Ghasemi ◽  
Simon J Handley ◽  
Stephanie Howarth
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Ability ◽  
Cognitive Style ◽  
Processing Time ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Human Reasoning ◽  
Logical Validity ◽  
Process Theories ◽  
Dual Process Theories ◽  
Deliberative Reasoning

Classic dual process theories of human reasoning attribute explicit reasoning to effortful, deliberative thinking. According to these models, intuitive processes lack any access to the formal rules of logic and probability and hence rely exclusively on superficial problem features to determine a response. However, in recent years, researchers have demonstrated that reasoners are able to solve simple logical or probabilistic problems relatively automatically, a capability which has been called ‘logical intuition’. In four experiments, we instructed participants to judge the validity (Experiments 1 and 4), likeability (Experiments 1, 2, and 3) and physical brightness (Experiments 2, 3, and 4) of the conclusion to several reasoning problems. Brightness judgments were made by evaluating the font shade brightness of the argument’s conclusion. Participants were also asked to complete a range of individual differences measures, drawing on cognitive ability and cognitive style, in order to evaluate the extent to which ‘logical intuitions’ were linked to measures of deliberative reasoning. The results showed that participants judged the conclusion of logically valid statements to be more valid, more likable and more physically bright. Participants with higher cognitive ability and unlimited processing time showed greater effects of logical validity in their liking judgments (varied across experiments). However, these effects were absent in the brightness tasks, suggesting that logic effects observed under instructions to judge conclusion brightness are a purer measure of ‘logical intuition’. We discuss the implications of our findings for recent dual process theories of human reasoning.

scholarly journals Allport’s Prejudiced Personality Today

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 349-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arne Roets ◽  
Alain Van Hiel
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Style ◽  
Intergroup Contact ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Motivated Cognition ◽  
Cognitive Closure ◽  
Empirical Basis ◽  
Contemporary Research ◽  
Need For Cognitive Closure ◽  
History Of ◽  
Foundational Work

In the long history of psychological research on prejudice, Allport’s (1954) book The Nature of Prejudice is undoubtedly the foundational work, advancing ideas that remain highly influential and relevant to this day. Guided by the seminal ideas of this leading scholar, we illustrate how contemporary psychological research has accumulated evidence for a basic, motivated cognitive style underlying prejudice in its different forms. Specifically, we demonstrate that Allport’s classic conception of this basic cognitive style is exceptionally well captured by the contemporary construct of need for cognitive closure (NFC), and we review the recent evidence for NFC effects on racism and sexism. Integrating Allport’s writings with contemporary research, we also show that the effects of motivated cognition on prejudice are explained (i.e., mediated) by essentialist thinking and authoritarian ideology. Finally, we discuss recent evidence indicating that, in contrast to Allport’s pessimistic predictions, intergroup contact is especially effective in reducing prejudice among people high in NFC. It is concluded that recent research on NFC provides a solid empirical basis for Allport’s hypothesis that a general motivated cognitive style lies at the basis of prejudice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document