On the Disposition to Think Analytically: Four Distinct Intuitive-Analytic Thinking Styles.

Many measures have been developed to index intuitive versus analytic thinking. Yet it remains an open question whether people primarily vary along a single dimension or if there are genuinely different types of thinking styles. We distinguish between four distinct types of thinking styles: Actively Open-minded Thinking, Close-Minded Thinking, Preference for Intuitive Thinking, and Preference for Effortful Thinking. We discovered strong predictive validity across several outcome measures (e.g., epistemically suspect beliefs, bullshit receptivity, empathy, moral judgments), with some subscales having stronger predictive validity for some outcomes but not others. Furthermore, Actively Open-minded Thinking, in particular, strongly outperformed the Cognitive Reflection Test in predicting misperceptions about COVID-19 and the ability to discern between vaccination-related true and false news. Our results indicate that people do, in fact, differ along multiple dimensions of intuitive-analytic thinking styles and that these dimensions have consequences for understanding a wide range of beliefs and behaviors.

I Think I Should Get Vaccinated, I Feel I Should Not. Individual Differences in Information Processing and Vaccination Behavior (COVID-19).

Following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the scientific community responded promptly by developing effective vaccines. Still, even though effective vaccines against COVID-19 became available, many people did not seem to be in a rush to become immunized. Community protection can be enhanced if more people decide to vaccinate, and thus it is necessary to identify relevant factors involved in vaccination behavior to find better ways of encouraging it. Vaccination behavior is the result of a decision process that might vary according to individual differences in information processing. We investigated the role of cognitive reflection ability and thinking styles in predicting self-reported vaccination behavior against COVID-19. A sample of 274 Romanian participants was surveyed for the present study, out of which 217 (Mage = 24.58, SD = 8.31; 53% female) declared they had the possibility to become vaccinated. Results showed that a higher level of cognitive reflection ability significantly increased the odds of becoming vaccinated. A rational thinking style was not linked to vaccination behavior. However, an experiential thinking style indirectly predicted vaccination behavior by means of attitudes towards vaccination. Since individual differences in information processing are, to a certain extent, linked to vaccination behavior, the design of vaccination campaigns could consider that people have specific information needs and address them as such.

Identifying and Debunking Environmentally-Related False News Stories - An Experimental Investigation

Most research on false information is currently beeing conducted in the realm of politics and Covid-19. This study addresses environmentally-related news stories. With the help of two experiments, I explore determinants that can explain who is good at distinguishing between accurate (i.e., factually correct) and false information, and compare several intervention scenarios to debunk false information. In experiment one, subjects had to rate environmentally-related news stories as accurate or false. Afterward, subjects received systematically varied information about the correctness of the news stories depending on the experimental condition they had been randomly assigned to. After a period of three weeks, the subjects were asked to evaluate the news stories again (experiment two). In experiment one, I find that the perceived familiarity with news stories increased the propensity to accept them as true. Moreover, actively open-minded thinking helped to distinguish between accurate and false information. But the willingness to think deliberately did not seem to be important. In experiment two, it can be found that by repeating false news stories, subjects were more likely to adequately identify them later (i.e., no evidence for a familiarity backfire effect). However, it decreased the likelihood to adequately identify accurate news stories. A somewhat reverse, but weaker effect occurred when factually correct news stories were repeated: the correct identification of accurate news stories was more successful, but the opposite holds for the identification of false news stories.

COVID-19 as infodemic: The impact of political orientation and open-mindedness on the discernment of misinformation in WhatsApp

Messaging applications are changing the communication landscape in emerging countries. While offering speed and affordability, these solutions have also opened the way for the spread of misinformation. Aiming to better understand the dynamics of COVID-19 as infodemic, we asked Brazilian participants (n=1007) to report the perceived accuracy of 20 messages (10 true and 10 false). Each message was randomly presented within five fictitious WhatsApp group chats of varying political orientation. Correlational analyses revealed that right-wing participants had lower levels of truth discernment as did those with greater trust in social media as a reliable source of coronavirus information. Conversely, open-minded thinking about evidence and trust in the WHO and traditional media was positively associated with truth discernment. Familiarity with the content consistently increased perceived truthness for both true and false messages. Results point to the nefarious effects of COVID-19 politicization and underline the importance of promoting the ability to recognize and value new evidence as well as enhancing trust in international agencies and traditional media.

Analytic thinking predicts accuracy ratings and willingness to share COVID-19 misinformation in Australia.

The classical account of reasoning posits that analytic thinking weakens belief in COVID-19 misinformation. We tested this account in a demographically representative sample of 742 Australians. Participants completed a performance-based measure of analytic thinking (the Cognitive Reflection Test) and were randomized to groups in which they either rated the perceived accuracy of claims about COVID-19 or indicated whether they would be willing to share these claims. Half of these claims were previously debunked misinformation, and half were statements endorsed by public health agencies. We found that participants with higher analytic thinking levels were less likely to rate COVID-19 misinformation as accurate and were less likely to be willing to share COVID-19 misinformation. These results support the classical account of reasoning for the topic of COVID-19 misinformation and extend it to the Australian context.

Analytic Thinking and Political Orientation in the Corona Crisis.

With much unknown about the new coronavirus, the scientific consensus is that human hosts are crucial to its spread and reproduction-the more people behave like regular socializing beings they are, the more likely it is that the virus will propagate. Hence, many nations worldwide have mandated physical-distancing measures. In the current preregistered research, we focus on examining two factors that may help explain differences in adherence to COVID-19 preventive behaviors and policy support across different countries-political orientation and analytic thinking. We positioned our research within the dual-process framework of human reasoning and investigated the role of cognitive reflection, open-minded thinking, and political ideology in determining COVID-19 responsible behavior (physical distancing and maintaining hygiene) and support for restrictive COVID-19 policies on a sample of 12,490 participants from 17 countries. We have not been able to detect substantial relationships of political orientation with preventive behaviors and policy support, and overall found no reliable evidence of politicization, nor polarization regarding the issue. The results of structural equation modeling showed that the inclination towards COVID-19 preventive measures and their endorsement were defined primarily by the tendency of open-minded thinking. Specifically, open-minded thinking was shown to be a predictor of all three criteria-avoiding physical contact, maintaining physical hygiene, and supporting COVID-19 restrictive mitigation policies. Cognitive reflection was predictive of lesser adherence to stricter hygiene and only very weakly predictive of lesser policy support. Furthermore, there was no evidence of these effects varying across political contexts. The mediation analysis suggested a partial mediation effect of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs on the relationships of open-mindedness and cognitive reflection with physical distancing (but not adherence to stricter hygiene) and COVID-19 policy support, albeit very small and significant primarily due to sample size. There was also no evidence of these effects varying across political contexts. Finally, we have not been able to find strong evidence of political orientation modifying the relationship between analytical thinking and COVID-19 behaviors and policy support, although we explored the pattern of these effects in the US and Canadian samples for exploratory purposes and comparison with other similar studies.

Beliefs About COVID-19 in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States: A Novel Test of Political Polarization and Motivated Reasoning.

What are the psychological consequences of the increasingly politicized nature of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States relative to similar Western countries? In a two-wave study completed early (March) and later (December) in the pandemic, we found that polarization was greater in the United States (N = 1,339) than in Canada (N = 644) and the United Kingdom. (N = 1,283). Political conservatism in the United States was strongly associated with engaging in weaker mitigation behaviors, lower COVID-19 risk perceptions, greater misperceptions, and stronger vaccination hesitancy. Although there was some evidence that cognitive sophistication was associated with increased polarization in the United States in December (but not March), cognitive sophistication was nonetheless consistently negatively correlated with misperceptions and vaccination hesitancy across time, countries, and party lines. Furthermore, COVID-19 skepticism in the United States was strongly correlated with distrust in liberal-leaning mainstream news outlets and trust in conservative-leaning news outlets, suggesting that polarization may be driven by differences in information environments.

Dissociation, Cognitive Reflection and Health Literacy Have a Modest Effect on Belief in Conspiracy Theories about COVID-19.

Understanding the predictors of belief in COVID-related conspiracy theories and willingness to get vaccinated against COVID-19 may aid the resolution of current and future pandemics. We investigate how psychological and cognitive characteristics influence general conspiracy mentality and COVID-related conspiracy theories. A cross-sectional study was conducted based on data from an online survey of a sample of Czech university students (n = 866) collected in January 2021, using multivariate linear regression and mediation analysis. Sixteen percent of respondents believed that COVID-19 is a hoax, and 17% believed that COVID-19 was intentionally created by humans. Seven percent of the variance of the hoax theory and 10% of the variance of the creation theory was explained by (in descending order of relevance) low cognitive reflection, low digital health literacy, high experience with dissociation and, to some extent, high bullshit receptivity. Belief in COVID-related conspiracy theories depended less on psychological and cognitive variables compared to conspiracy mentality (16% of the variance explained). The effect of digital health literacy on belief in COVID-related theories was moderated by cognitive reflection. Belief in conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 was influenced by experience with dissociation, cognitive reflection, digital health literacy and bullshit receptivity.

Cognitive Predictors of Precautionary Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The attempts to mitigate the unprecedented health, economic, and social disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic are largely dependent on establishing compliance to behavioral guidelines and rules that reduce the risk of infection. Here, by conducting an online survey that tested participants' knowledge about the disease and measured demographic, attitudinal, and cognitive variables, we identify predictors of self-reported social distancing and hygiene behavior. To investigate the cognitive processes underlying health-prevention behavior in the pandemic, we co-opted the dual-process model of thinking to measure participants' propensities for automatic and intuitive thinking vs. controlled and reflective thinking. Self-reports of 17 precautionary behaviors, including regular hand washing, social distancing, and wearing a face mask, served as a dependent measure. The results of hierarchical regressions showed that age, risk-taking propensity, and concern about the pandemic predicted adoption of precautionary behavior. Variance in cognitive processes also predicted precautionary behavior: participants with higher scores for controlled thinking (measured with the Cognitive Reflection Test) reported less adherence to specific guidelines, as did respondents with a poor understanding of the infection and transmission mechanism of the COVID-19 virus. The predictive power of this model was comparable to an approach (Theory of Planned Behavior) based on attitudes to health behavior. Given these results, we propose the inclusion of measures of cognitive reflection and mental model variables in predictive models of compliance, and future studies of precautionary behavior to establish how cognitive variables are linked with people's information processing and social norms.

Your health vs. my liberty: Philosophical beliefs dominated reflection and identifiable victim effects when predicting public health recommendation compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In response to crises, people sometimes prioritize fewer specific identifiable victims over many unspecified statistical victims. How other factors can explain this bias remains unclear. So two experiments investigated how complying with public health recommendations during the COVID19 pandemic depended on victim portrayal, reflection, and philosophical beliefs (Total N = 998). Only one experiment found that messaging about individual victims increased compliance compared to messaging about statistical victims-i.e., "flatten the curve" graphs-an effect that was undetected after controlling for other factors. However, messaging about flu (vs. COVID19) indirectly reduced compliance by reducing perceived threat of the pandemic. Nevertheless, moral beliefs predicted compliance better than messaging and reflection in both experiments. The second experiment's additional measures revealed that religiosity, political preferences, and beliefs about science also predicted compliance. This suggests that flouting public health recommendations may be less about ineffective messaging or reasoning than philosophical differences.

Exploring the risk-taking tendency among migrant workers in the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of ontological security.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the social environment of most laborers around the world and has profoundly affected people's ontological security and behavior choices. Among them, the migrant workers are one of the groups most affected by the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: This study explored the mechanism of the impact of the scarcity of ontological security caused by the pandemic on the risk-taking tendency of migrant workers in China through two studies. METHODS: This study adopts two experimental method, with 514 participants in the first study and 357 participants in the second study. RESULTS: The results show that the pandemic-induced scarcity perception of ontological security promotes their risk-taking tendency, and the migrant workers' cognitive reflection ability, sense of unfairness and expected benefits play a significant mediating role in this process. The scarcity perception of ontological security promotes migrant workers' risk-taking tendency by reducing the cognitive reflection ability, triggering the sense of unfairness and overstating expected benefits. CONCLUSIONS: The conclusion of this study can help migrant workers, enterprises and government to avoid potential workplace and social bad behavior.