Neither age nor intelligence is systematically related to wisdom; wisdom is correlated with openness, hedonic well-being, and eudaimonic well-being

Thirty Years of Psychological Wisdom Research: What We Know About the Correlates of an Ancient Concept. Mengxi Dong, Nic M. Weststrate, and Marc A. Fournier. Perspectives on Psychological Science, November 2, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221114096

Abstract: Psychologists have studied the ancient concept of wisdom for 3 decades. Nevertheless, apparent discrepancies in theories and empirical findings have left the nomological network of the construct unclear. Using multilevel meta-analyses, we summarized wisdom’s correlations with age, intelligence, the Big Five personality traits, narcissism, self-esteem, social desirability, and well-being. We furthermore examined whether these correlations were moderated by the general approach to conceptualizing and measuring wisdom (i.e., phenomenological wisdom as indexed by self-report vs. performative wisdom as indexed by performance ratings), by specific wisdom measures, and by variable-specific factors (e.g., age range, type of intelligence measures, and well-being type). Although phenomenological and performative approaches to conceptualizing and measuring wisdom had some unique correlates, both were correlated with openness, hedonic well-being, and eudaimonic well-being, especially the growth aspect of eudaimonic well-being. Differences between phenomenological and performative wisdom are discussed in terms of the differences between typical and maximal performance, self-ratings and observer ratings, and global and state wisdom. This article will help move the scientific study of wisdom forward by elucidating reliable wisdom correlates and by offering concrete suggestions for future empirical research based on the meta-analytic findings.

Discussion

By meta-analyzing the extant literature, we summarized wisdom’s correlations with age, intelligence, the Big Five traits, narcissism, self-esteem, social desirability, and well-being. Although phenomenological and performative approaches to conceptualizing wisdom have their distinct correlates, both are correlated with openness, hedonic well-being, and eudaimonic well-being, especially the growth aspect of eudaimonic well-being. Transcending differences in conceptualizations and operationalizations of wisdom, these commonalities may reflect the fundamental characteristics of wisdom that are shared across theoretical perspectives. Specifically, wisdom entails being flexible in one’s thinking, the tendency and willingness to take on different ideas and perspectives, and an orientation toward exploration, psychological growth, and personal fulfillment. Furthermore, the results suggest that wisdom may indeed predict a good life, both in the hedonic and eudaimonic sense. Although not all forms of wisdom predict lives that are affectively positive, wiser individuals are ultimately happy, perhaps suggesting that wisdom may enable one to find contentment in life regardless of objective circumstances and one’s affective reactions to them. Importantly, the commonalities that we have identified through meta-analyses empirically corroborate earlier work (Glück, 2018; Grossmann et al., 2020) in showing that the diverse theoretical traditions and measurement approaches are not to be taken as an indication that the construct of wisdom lacks validity; instead, they should be seen as attempts that, although each incomplete and imperfect on their own, capture different aspects of the same phenomenon. We believe that these findings will in turn help future efforts at designing wisdom measures by providing more reliable estimates of wisdom correlates that will help with the evaluation of convergent and discriminant validity.

Beyond the common correlates, however, the meta-analytic results paint two distinct portraits for phenomenological and performative wisdom. The portrait for phenomenological wisdom is one of adaptation and adjustment. Individuals who experience wise cognition, motivation, emotion, and behavior are uniquely more likely to report higher self-esteem, more positive affect, less negative affect, and greater life satisfaction and have an adaptive profile of personality traits, in which agreeableness, extraversion, and conscientiousness are high and neuroticism is low. As suggested by results of the supplementary analyses, this positive association between phenomenological wisdom and adjustment cannot be fully explained by methodological artifacts such as socially desirable responding. Instead, echoing previous theorizing (e.g., Ardelt, 2019), we argue that these correlations are at least in part substantive and reflect the nature of wisdom as subjectively experienced by individuals.

However, when wisdom is judged by other people through wisdom-relevant products, as is the case with performative wisdom, it is not associated with most of the indicators of adaptation. Intelligence, a cognitive ability, is relevant to at least some (i.e., the Berlin wisdom paradigm), although not all, indicators of performative wisdom. Notably, the association between intelligence and wisdom is the strongest for crystallized intelligence. Taken together with the findings that performative wisdom correlated with openness and the growth aspect of eudaimonic well-being, it appears that in the eyes of the beholder, wisdom entails not only one’s orientation toward thinking wisely but also one’s competence at doing so. We argue that, rather than being contradictory, the findings for phenomenological and performative wisdom are complementary to one another. Perhaps analogous to the distinction in creativity research between “little-c” creativity, or the everyday, subjectively defined form of creativity, and “big-C” creativity, or the consensually recognized form of creativity (e.g., Simonton, 2017), phenomenological wisdom may capture the everyday experiences of wisdom, but whether these subjective experiences are recognized as wise by other people is a different question, which is in turn captured by performative wisdom.

Surprisingly, neither phenomenological nor performative wisdom correlated negatively with narcissism, which should be theoretically antithetical to wisdom. For phenomenological wisdom, one possible explanation of the nonsignificant correlation may be that although narcissism may decrease the endorsement of communal items in self-report wisdom measures, it may enhance the endorsement of agentic items. This is because narcissists have been shown to have overly positive perceptions of their agentic traits (e.g., intelligence, creativity, adjustment) but have accurate perceptions of their low levels of communal traits (e.g., care, compassion, and morality; Carlson & Khafagy, 2018). The lack of significant correlation with performative wisdom is hard to explain because performative wisdom measures are unlikely to have been strongly affected by self-enhancement. Because very few studies have measured wisdom alongside with narcissism, the estimates of the current meta-analysis may not be reliable, and it is possible that a clearer pattern of the relationship between the two constructs will emerge after more empirical research. We suggest that, given its theoretical relevance, future research should look more into the relationship between wisdom and narcissism, and associations with narcissism may offer an opportunity to evaluate the validity and comprehensiveness of wisdom measures.

Reconciling the two forms of wisdom

Results of the current study necessitate a better understanding of the differences between phenomenological and performative wisdom. We speculate that three potential sources of these differences may be (a) the distinction between typical and maximal performance, (b) the distinction between self-ratings and other-ratings, and (c) the distinction between global and state wisdom.

Typical versus maximal performance

In the context of wisdom, maximal performance refers to how wise one can be, whereas typical performance refers to how wise one is in daily life. Maximal performance is episodic and is typically elicited when individuals know that their performance will be evaluated and so exert their full effort (Sackett et al., 1988). Although these conditions for maximal performance are not explicitly expressed in the instructions of performative wisdom measures, performative wisdom measures can reasonably be seen as measures of maximal, rather than typical, performance. This is because most extant measures of performative wisdom, especially those involving interviews with experimenters, press participants to think more thoroughly about the dilemmas through a series of standard questions. In addition, the task of working through challenging dilemmas in a lab setting may itself be enough to suggest evaluation to participants. Responding to phenomenological wisdom measures, on the other hand, typically entails recalling how one typically behaves in the past, across many situations. Even when phenomenological wisdom measures assess state-level wisdom, as is the case with the SWIS, it is likely that they capture typical, rather than maximal, performance, because there is no reason to believe that the situational contexts elicit full effort in these cases. The discrepancies between performative and phenomenological wisdom may therefore be exaggerated by the fact that one assesses maximal performance whereas the other assesses typical performance. This implies that the discrepancies may be reduced if performative wisdom can be compared to maximal levels of phenomenological wisdom and vice versa. Because no extant phenomenological wisdom measures assess maximal performance and no performative wisdom measures assess typical performance, the development of these scales may constitute promising areas of future research.

Self-ratings vs. other-ratings

Another source of difference between phenomenological and performative wisdom may be the fact that phenomenological wisdom is experienced, whereas performative wisdom is evaluated. All extant performative wisdom measures entail the evaluation of products of wisdom (i.e., participants’ attempts at thinking through a challenging dilemma), whereas phenomenological wisdom measures entail reporting one’s subjective experience of wisdom-related cognitions, motivations, emotions, and behaviors. A high correspondence between the two forms of wisdom therefore entails the successful translation of one’s subjective experience of wisdom into products of wisdom, which are then recognized by other people. It is conceivable that several factors may affect the success of this process, such as ability and knowledge. A high correspondence between subjective (phenomenological) measures and objective (performative) measures also implies a high level of self-knowledge accuracy. Because accurate self-knowledge is regarded as an essential aspect of wisdom (Mickler & Staudinger, 2008), it is possible that the discrepancy between phenomenological and performative wisdom is reduced for wise individuals, a possibility to be examined by future research.

Global versus state wisdom

In this meta-analytic study, we categorized measures of wisdom as capturing either phenomenological or performative wisdom. Phenomenological and performative wisdom are not only theoretically distinct but are also consistent with how wisdom measures cluster together in principal component analysis (e.g., Dong & Fournier, 2022). However, there are other distinctions among the wisdom measures. For instance, wisdom measures also differ in whether they assess state or global wisdom. Specifically, all performative wisdom measures included in this meta-analysis are measures of state wisdom because they assess wisdom performance in one or a few instances. Of the phenomenological wisdom measures, only the SWIS assesses state wisdom, whereas all other phenomenological wisdom measures included in this study assess global wisdom. It is conceivable that some of the differences between phenomenological and performative wisdom are attributable to the state versus global wisdom distinction. The moderate correlations among state wisdom in different situations (Brienza et al., 2018) may explain why performative wisdom measures showed more divergent patterns of correlations than phenomenological wisdom measures. State wisdom also only moderately correlates with global wisdom (Brienza et al., 2018), which may partly explain the finding that the SWIS was unlike the rest of the phenomenological wisdom measures in its correlations with many of the variables examined (i.e., conscientiousness, neuroticism, self-esteem, and negative affect).

The distinctions that we have observed between phenomenological and performative wisdom in the current study may therefore be due to a variety of reasons beyond disagreements among conceptualizations of wisdom. The assessment of typical versus maximal performance, the source of judgment (self vs. others), and the assessment of state versus global wisdom likely all contributed to the divergence between phenomenological and performative wisdom in their relationships with other variables. These factors should be taken into consideration when designing future empirical studies of wisdom.

Implications

The findings of the current study allow us to make a few suggestions for future research. The first of these suggestions concerns the selection of the proper wisdom measure(s) to administer in empirical studies. Although some studies have employed a battery of wisdom measures, encompassing measures of both phenomenological and performative wisdom to comprehensively assess the construct (e.g., Dong & Fournier, 2022; Weststrate et al., 2018; Weststrate & Glück, 2017b), such an approach is time-consuming, resource-intensive, and infeasible in many circumstances. Researchers are therefore faced with the decision of choosing one or a few wisdom measures to administer. In many cases, this decision seems to have been made based on the researchers’ knowledge of and familiarity with specific measures, rather than on a systematic evaluation of all available measures given one’s research goals, which can obfuscate the relationships of interest.

Based on the insights gained from the current study, we propose that the following questions should be considered when selecting wisdom measures for a study. First, one should identify the form of wisdom that should be assessed given the research question. Phenomenological wisdom may be more relevant for some research questions (e.g., whether one’s self-perception of one’s wisdom agrees with the perceptions of other people), whereas performative wisdom may be more relevant for other research questions (e.g., whether wisdom predicts more negotiation successes). In addition, it is important to consider whether state wisdom or global wisdom is more relevant. If one is interested in the relationships between wisdom and other variables in specific contexts, then it is more appropriate to administer state measures of wisdom. Conversely, if one is interested in assessing wisdom as a stable characteristic, then one can either administer global measures of wisdom or administer state measures of wisdom multiple times and use the average of states to approximate global wisdom. Second, it is important to consider the content of wisdom measures and how that may affect the results of the study. Ideally, the wisdom measure(s) chosen for a study should be relevant to the research question, but not so much so as to share common dimensions with other variables in the study. For instance, the SAWS showed the highest meta-analytic correlation with trait openness; however, this is likely because openness constitutes one dimension of the SAWS. Thus, if wisdom is to be examined in relation to openness, it may be advisable to avoid using the SAWS as the measure of wisdom because it may artificially inflate the relationship between the constructs.

Limitations

The current study has several limitations. First, despite our best effort to gather relevant studies, it is unlikely that we have gathered all. Studies that were not in PsycINFO would have escaped the initial literature search. If these studies were not cited by one of the coded studies or submitted by their authors in response to our calls, then they would not have been included in the meta-analyses. Furthermore, some authors did not respond to our requests for submissions, so we were unable to obtain the relevant effect sizes that were not reported in the articles we gathered. There could also be relevant, unpublished data that were not submitted in response to our call. Given that the effect sizes meta-analyzed in the current study are only a subset of all relevant effect sizes, the results of the meta-analyses we present are only approximations of the true associations between wisdom and the criterion variables. Although we have no reason to believe that there were systematic differences between the studies included in the meta-analysis and those that were not, it is possible that the inclusion of additional studies would change the results of the meta-analyses. The results and conclusions of the current study should therefore be viewed as preliminary evidence, rather than final verdicts, on wisdom’s correlations with age, intelligence, the Big Five traits, narcissism, self-esteem, social desirability, and well-being.

Second, our meta-analyses were unable to address the more nuanced associations between wisdom and the criterion variables. For instance, previous studies have shown that the association between age and wisdom changes with age (e.g., Ardelt et al., 2019; Brienza et al., 2018; Webster, Westerhof, & Bohlmeijer, 2014). Although we have offered some preliminary evidence for this postulation by examining the moderating role of age range on the correlation between wisdom and age, the meta-analytic data and technique did not allow us to evaluate whether the association between age and wisdom followed a curvilinear relationship. Likewise, many researchers consider intelligence to be a necessary but not sufficient condition for wisdom (e.g., Glück, 2017; Grossmann et al., 2020; Staudinger & Pasupathi, 2003), which has already received some empirical support (Dong & Fournier, 2022; Glück & Scherpf, 2022); however, we were unable to examine this postulation in the current study. Therefore, although the study provides insights into the rudimentary, linear relationships between wisdom and criterion variables, it is insufficient for a full understanding of these relationships.

Third, because of the small numbers of effect sizes and samples of participants, it was impossible to examine the interactions between the moderators reliably, leading us to decide against conducting such analyses in the current study. Moderators were tested one at a time and independently from each other. This meant that we were unable to address questions such as whether age range moderates the association between age and wisdom differently for different measures of wisdom or whether phenomenological and performative wisdom were differentially associated with crystallized and fluid intelligence. These questions are important and should be addressed by future meta-analytical attempts as more primary studies accumulate.

Fourth, we could not address the moderating role of culture in wisdom’s association with the criterion variables. This was primarily because of the difficulty in appropriately coding the culture of participant samples, as most samples included a mixture of ethnicities, indicating that they may not be uniform in culture. Moreover, most of the samples were collected in Europe and North America. Because other cultures were underrepresented, estimated cultural effects were unlikely to be reliable or accurate. Although the current study could not examine culture as a moderating variable, evidence suggests that culture may indeed play a moderating role in wisdom’s correlation with other variables (e.g., Grossmann et al., 2012). To date, relatively few studies have examined whether the correlates of wisdom change across cultures, a gap that should be addressed by future studies.

For both victims and perpetrators, infidelity was preceded (but not followed) by longer periods of decline in personal and relationship well-being

Estranged and Unhappy? Examining the Dynamics of Personal and Relationship Well-Being Surrounding Infidelity. Olga Stavrova, Tila Pronk, and Jaap Denissen. Psychological Science, November 2, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221116892

Abstract: Although relationship theories often describe infidelity as a damaging event in a couple’s life, it remains unclear whether relationship problems actually follow infidelity, precede it, or both. The analyses of dyadic panel data of adults in Germany including about 1,000 infidelity events showed that infidelity was preceded (but not followed) by a gradual decrease in relationship functioning in perpetrators and victims. There was little evidence of rebound effects in the aftermath of infidelity, with the exception of unfaithful women and individuals with lower initial relationship commitment who returned to the pre-event level of well-being or even exceeded it, providing support to the expectancy violation theory (vs. the investment model of infidelity). By showing that well-being starts to decline before infidelity happens, this study provides a differentiated view on the temporal dynamics of infidelity and well-being and contributes to the literature on romantic relationship dynamics and major life events.

Discussion

We used prospective dyadic data to examine the temporal dynamics of personal and relationship well-being surrounding experiences of infidelity. Our analyses provided four main findings that we summarize below.

First, for the first time, we showed that infidelity events were preceded by a gradual decrease in personal and relationship well-being in victims and perpetrators, as evident in both actor and partner reports. In perpetrators, this decline might be a reason for starting an affair or even an intentional distress management strategy (see Scott et al., 2017). In victims, a decrease in well-being might be a result of feeling the partner’s dissatisfaction or represent a causal factor increasing their likelihood of being cheated on. Unhappiness has been associated with poor outcomes in social life in previous research (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005; Stavrova & Luhmann, 2016). Hence, a decrease in personal well-being might make the future victim less attractive, contributing to the infidelity of the partner.

Second, in contrast to what most previous research on other negative interpersonal events (e.g., divorce, widowhood) indicated (Denissen et al., 2018; Lucas, 2007; Luhmann et al., 2012), infidelity events were not followed by steady recovery patterns. Although we detected small rebound effects with respect to some of the outcome variables, neither victims nor perpetrators were able to return to their initial levels of well-being. Potentially, the guilt and social disapproval associated with infidelity renders this event particularly difficult to recover from.

Third, puzzled by the lack of recovery patterns, we explored potential sources of between-individuals heterogeneity in responses to infidelity. We found that individuals who were more (vs. less) committed to the relationship before the event tended to experience a stronger deterioration in well-being after cheating or being cheated on. Their less committed counterparts, on the other hand, seemed to report an upward well-being trend following infidelity. This pattern is consistent with the expectancy violation theory (Burgoon, 1993): Higher commitment could be associated with higher relationship expectations and stronger disappointment when the expectations are violated.

Interestingly, our exploratory analyses detected one more group of participants who seem to recover and even thrive after infidelity, other than individuals with low relationship commitment: unfaithful women. Women (vs. men) are more likely to mention relationship dissatisfaction as a reason for their affair (Barta & Kiene, 2005), and prior research has shown that acts of infidelity committed because of relationship problems can lead to positive psychological outcomes (Beltrán-Morillas et al., 2020). Potentially, women’s affairs are more likely to be a result of partner dissatisfaction, and consequently, the affair may be a wake-up call for their partners, leading to positive behavioral change. These findings add to the small literature exploring the conditions in which infidelity might have positive consequences (Beltrán-Morillas et al., 2020; Thompson et al., 2021).

Finally, the inclusion of actor and partner outcomes in both victim and perpetrator samples resulted in several potentially interesting observations. Negative well-being consequences (i.e., post-event baseline change) appeared more common in perpetrators who reported cheating themselves (i.e., actor well-being in the perpetrator sample) than in perpetrators whose partner reported cheating (i.e., partner well-being in the victim sample) and in victims (see Figs. 2 and 3). Although this could be partially explained by differences in power (for sensitivity analyses, see the Supplemental Material), the nature of infidelity—disclosed versus secret—could have played a role, too. Disclosed infidelity was presumably more common in the victim sample (as it was reported by the victims) than in the perpetrator sample (as it was reported by the perpetrators). This is consistent with the perpetrator sample being almost twice as large as the victim sample, where secret affairs were probably unreported.

Potentially, perpetrators are more negatively affected by infidelity when it is kept secret (i.e., actor effects in the perpetrator sample) versus disclosed (i.e., partner effects in the victim sample). Disclosing infidelity can help some couples find a solution to the relationship problems that led to infidelity in the first place (Atkins et al., 2005). The higher share of secret affairs in the perpetrator sample versus victim sample could also explain why perpetrators and their partners had chronically lower personal and relationship well-being, relative to the control sample, whereas neither victims of infidelity nor their partners differed from the control sample (selection effects; see Fig. 1). It should be noted that in the absence of the explicit information regarding infidelity disclosure rates, this interpretation remains speculative. Future research should test to what extent the perpetrator-victim differences in the present study are a result of differences in disclosure versus perpetrator/victim status.

Limitations and future directions

The reliance on large-scale panel data resulted in many benefits: It allowed us to identify a high number (~1,000) of infidelity events, track them for several years before and after infidelity, and compare the relationship trajectories of participants who experienced infidelity with a large control sample of individuals who did not (~1,500). However, the reliance on these secondary data restricted our ability to influence sampling (e.g., Germany) and measurement decisions, resulting in several limitations. The lack of information regarding whether the infidelity has come to light or not is one of them (as discussed above). In addition, the phrasing of the infidelity measure (“extra-marital affair”) could have left room for different interpretations (e.g., extradyadic sex vs. an online flirt) and included consensual nonmonogamous relationships. Comparing the effects of different infidelity types as well as examining whether changes in different aspects of relationship functioning could lead to different types of infidelity could be an interesting endeavor for future studies.

Things become more valuable to us merely by virtue of the fact that we possess them

Owning leads to valuing: Meta-analysis of the mere ownership effect. Michał Białek, Yajing Gao, Donna Yao, Gilad Feldman. European Journal of Social Psychology, November 2 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2889

Abstract: Mere ownership effect is the phenomenon that people tend to value what they own more than what they do not own. This classic effect is considered robust, yet effect sizes vary across studies, and the effect is often confused for or confounded with other classic phenomena, such as endowment or mere exposure effects. We conducted a pre-registered meta-analysis of 26 samples published before 2019 (N = 3024), which resulted in psychological ownership on valuing effect of g ∼ 0.57 [0.46, 0.69]. Suggestive moderator analyses supported the use of replica as the strongest moderators. Mere ownership effects were different from the null across all moderator categories and in most publication bias adjustments. We consider this as suggestive evidence that psychological owning leads to valuing, yet caution that much more research is needed. All materials, data, and codes are available on https://osf.io/fdyqw/.

The female vulva is flat in pornography, lacking the natural labial protrusion; these authors think that, based on the impact these images have on women’s psychological wellbeing, pornographers should consider diversifying their actresses

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Consistent with an evolutionary approach to understanding revenge, the results show that men were twice as likely to report fantasies of direct/overt acts of revenge than were women

Fantasies of Revenge: An Evolutionary and Individual Differences Account. Stephen M. Yoshimura and Susan Boon. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, November 1, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762366221133322

Abstract: In this study, we examine the descriptive qualities of revenge fantasies and test evolutionary and individual-difference accounts for the experience of them. Participants recalled and described a revenge fantasy, and rated its recency, duration, intensity, and the frequency with which they fantasized about revenge overall. They also completed measures of narcissistic entitlement and vengefulness. Consistent with an evolutionary approach to understanding revenge, the results show that men were twice as likely to report fantasies of direct/overt acts of revenge than were women. Vengefulness and narcissistic entitlement did not relate to whether the fantasized revenge act was direct/overt or indirect/covert, but related to the frequency and intensity of participants’ revenge fantasies and the affective experiences participants reported while thinking of them. The findings add specificity to the three-phase model of revenge (Yoshimura & Boon, 2018), and reveal areas of potential growth in research on revenge, in general, and revenge fantasies specifically.

Authors say: Regulation must not result in censorship; however, freedom of speech does not include the right to amplification of that speech (!?)

The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Ullrich K. H. Ecker, Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook, Philipp Schmid, Lisa K. Fazio, Nadia Brashier, Panayiota Kendeou, Emily K. Vraga & Michelle A. Amazeen. Nature Reviews Psychology volume 1, pages 13–29, Jan 12 2022. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44159-021-00006-y

Abstract: Misinformation has been identified as a major contributor to various contentious contemporary events ranging from elections and referenda to the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Not only can belief in misinformation lead to poor judgements and decision-making, it also exerts a lingering influence on people’s reasoning after it has been corrected — an effect known as the continued influence effect. In this Review, we describe the cognitive, social and affective factors that lead people to form or endorse misinformed views, and the psychological barriers to knowledge revision after misinformation has been corrected, including theories of continued influence. We discuss the effectiveness of both pre-emptive (‘prebunking’) and reactive (‘debunking’) interventions to reduce the effects of misinformation, as well as implications for information consumers and practitioners in various areas including journalism, public health, policymaking and education.

 

---

Summary and future directions

Psychological research has built solid foundational knowledge of how people decide what is true and false, form beliefs, process corrections, and might continue to be influenced by misinformation even after it has been corrected. However, much work remains to fully understand the psychology of misinformation.

First, in line with general trends in psychology and elsewhere, research methods in the field of misinformation should be improved. Researchers should rely less on small-scale studies conducted in the laboratory or a small number of online platforms, often on non-representative (and primarily US-based) participants255. Researchers should also avoid relying on one-item questions with relatively low reliability256. Given the well-known attitude–behaviour gap — that attitude change does not readily translate into behavioural effects — researchers should also attempt to use more behavioural measures, such as information-sharing measures, rather than relying exclusively on self-report questionnaires93,94,95. Although existing research has yielded valuable insights into how people generally process misinformation (many of which will translate across different contexts and cultures), an increased focus on diversification of samples and more robust methods is likely to provide a better appreciation of important contextual factors and nuanced cultural differences7,82,205,257,258,259,260,261,262,263.

Second, most existing work has focused on explicit misinformation and text-based materials. Thus, the cognitive impacts of other types of misinformation, including subtler types of misdirection such as paltering (misleading while technically saying the truth)95,264,265,266, doctored images267, deepfake videos268 and extreme patterns of misinformation bombardment223, are currently not well understood. Non-text-based corrections, such as videos or cartoons, also deserve more exploration269,270.

Third, additional translational research is needed to explore questions about causality, including the causal impacts of misinformation and corrections on beliefs and behaviours. This research should also employ non-experimental methods230,231,271, such as observational causal inference (research aiming to establish causality in observed real-world data)272, and test the impact of interventions in the real world145,174,181,207. These studies are especially needed over the long term — weeks to months, or even years — and should test a range of outcome measures, for example those that relate to health and political behaviours, in a range of contexts. Ultimately, the success of psychological research into misinformation should be linked not only to theoretical progress but also to societal impact273.

Finally, even though the field has a reasonable understanding of the cognitive mechanisms and social determinants of misinformation processing, knowledge of the complex interplay between cognitive and social dynamics is still limited, as is insight into the role of emotion. Future empirical and theoretical work would benefit from development of an overarching theoretical model that aims to integrate cognitive, social and affective factors, for example by utilizing agent-based modelling approaches. This approach might also offer opportunities for more interdisciplinary work257 at the intersection of psychology, political science274 and social network analysis275, and the development of a more sophisticated psychology of misinformation.

U.S. freshmen hold systematically incorrect beliefs about the relationship between majors and occupations; students appear to stereotype majors, greatly exaggerating the likelihood that they lead to their most distinctive jobs

What Jobs Come to Mind? Stereotypes about Fields of Study. John J. Conlon, Dev Patel. October 30, 2022. https://johnjconlon17.github.io/website/Conlon_Patel_stereotypes.pdf

Abstract: How do students form beliefs about how their future career will depend on their choice of college major? Using both nationally representative survey data and surveys that we administered among undergraduates at the Ohio State University, we document that U.S. freshmen hold systematically incorrect beliefs about the relationship between majors and occupations. Students appear to stereotype majors, greatly exaggerating the likelihood that they lead to their most distinctive jobs (e.g., counselor for psychology, journalist for journalism, teacher for education). A stylized model of major choice suggests that stereotyping boosts demand for “risky” majors: ones with rare stereotypical careers and low-paying alternative jobs. In a field experiment among the same Ohio State sample, providing statistical information on career frequencies to first-year college students has significant effects on their intended majors (and, less precisely, on their choices of which classes to enroll in), with larger effects on students considering risky majors. Finally, we present a model of belief formation in which stereotyping arises as a product of associative memory. The same model predicts—and the survey data confirm—that students also overestimate rare non-stereotypical careers and careers that are concentrated within particular majors. The model also generates predictions regarding role model effects, with students exaggerating the frequency of career-major combinations held by people they are personally close to.

IQ was not strongly related to climate change attitudes; this seems surprising to the authors because in acrimonious debates both sides accuse the other of ignorance

Correlates of belief in climate change: Demographics, ideology and belief systems. Adrian Furnham, Charlotte Robinson. Acta Psychologica, Volume 230, October 2022, 103775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103775

Abstract: This paper reports on two studies that examine correlates of attitudes to climate change (ACC). In the first study, five hundred participants completed five questionnaires and an intelligence test as well as two related measures of ACC. Using correlations and regressions we examined the relationship between ACC and demography (gender, age, education), ideology (political and religious beliefs), intelligence, self-beliefs, Belief in a Just World and the endorsement of Conspiracy Theories. One climate change questionnaire factored into three factors labelled Impact, Fatalism, and Personal action. The most consistent finding was that political opinions were most strongly related to climate change beliefs: more conservative thinkers denied that individuals could do anything. In the second study, also with 500 participants, we asked one question concerning how seriously they took the issue of global warming. Again, we examined the relationship with this response and the participants' demography, ideology and self-ratings. Political beliefs primarily were related to global warming concerns, as in the first study. Results are discussed in terms of climate change as an ideology and the possible changing of these beliefs. Limitations, like the representativeness of the sample and the single-item measure in the second study are acknowledged.

Keywords: Climate changeIdeologyBeliefsConspiracy theories

[...]

Surprisingly IQ was not strongly related to ACC, except the second factor concerning fatalistic beliefs. The IQ score was significantly correlated with other scores such as education, religious beliefs and the rejection of CTs, though it was not closely related to ACC. This is surprising because in acrimonious debates both sides accuse the other of ignorance.

[...]

4. General discussion

As is apparent from public demonstrations, social media messages and the mass media, ACC is an increasing hot topic and one which attracts a great deal of attention. Whilst these studies did not use fully representative samples, they did indicate that most people tend to the activist end of the ACC spectrum: that is the accept climate change and see it as predominantly “man-made”. Nevertheless, there is still and sufficient spread of beliefs to investigate our hypotheses.

The results from both studies suggested that gender, age, education and religious beliefs were not strongly associated with ACC but clearly demonstrate the relationship between political beliefs and ACC. Despite using three different measures of ACC in the two studies, the results showed that of all the variables we considered by far the most powerful and consistent was political beliefs. Those rated themselves as more conservative were more likely to be climate sceptics. Whilst this result would not surprise many, perhaps what is most interesting is the power of this single variable over and above the many we measured. By and large these results concur with other related studies in different countries (Krange et al., 2019; McCright & Dunlap, 2011).

In both studies we used both correlational and regression analyses. Whilst the correlations indicated many variables associated ACC the regressions gave a clearer picture identifying very clearly the role of political beliefs.

Climate change is clearly more an ideological issue than anything else. Liberal as opposed to politically conservative people accept the idea that climate change is real and primarily man made whilst conservatives reject this view. As a consequence, the former advocate a range of radical changes in society while the latter strongly reject them. Perhaps it is this factor that accounts for the finding: that is, because the “solutions” to climate change are so radical, conservatives find it easiest to reject the possible cause. This hypothesis may be tested by asking people about the beliefs in the efficacy and indeed morality of climate change interventions.

Douglas and Sutton (2015) suggest that ACC deniers may be considered conspiracy theorists. They suggest that climate conspiracy theorists believe that climate scientists and politicians are distorting or hijacking the science for their own agenda. Moreover, more than the many other conspiracy theories, those concerning climate change seem more politically loaded, dividing opinion across the left-right continuum.

It is interesting in the first study that the measure of CT, used in many other studies (Furnham, 2022), did not correlate significantly with two factors and was significant in only one regression. This may be because there is a difference between climate change cynics and sceptics; the former of which are likely to embrace a wide range of theories while the latter are very specific. There are also a number of spokespeople for the sceptic position that are clearly not conspiracy thinkers or activists.

These results raise issues about the change of ACC beliefs. There are a number of individuals and organisations that hope to convert people to their cause as regards ACC. They usually do so by the presentation of data of varying quality and complexity. They face a very similar problem to those eager to reduce CTs. Cichocka (2020) argued that three broad psychological needs underlie conspiracy beliefs: the need to understand the world, to feel safe, and to belong as well as feel positive about oneself and one's social groups. She argues that we should not abandon other methods of correcting misinformation and stemming its spread. Debunking is extremely difficult, but ‘Prebunking’ is more effective and involves warning people that they might encounter misinformation before they accept it. It would appear that there are still relatively few studies on the efficacy of methods to modify ACC.

Given these findings it would be interesting to trace politicians in various countries assertions about climate change and the way these have changed over time. It is now 60 years since Carson's (1962) famous popular book Silent Spring was published and which is still quoted by both sides in the argument.

Like all others this study had limitations. Given the relevance of ideology, particularly political beliefs, it would have been desirable to have explored in much more detail a participants' political beliefs, knowledge and past political behaviour, like voting, party membership and active participation in campaigns. However, there is evidence that this one item personal rating is consistently and logically related to other belief systems (Furnham & Robinson, 2021). The mean score (and standard deviation) in both samples was very similar and indicated most of these younger and better educated people tended to be more politically liberal than conservative.

It would also be of interest to explore knowledge of, as well as attitudes to, climate change: that is what facts and data people know or choose to quote on these issues. This would no doubt be related to their media preferences and consumption. Our sample was clearly not representative of a general (European) population, being younger and better educated. They tended to be more left-wing/liberal, with scores being around 6 out of 8 on this dimension, with an SD of around 2. It would be interesting given the results to seek out larger groups from different ends of the political spectrum, though it is not clear if the results would be much different.

In conclusion this study underlined the role of political beliefs in climate change beliefs (Conversi & Hau, 2021). Despite examining a wide range of other demographic, ideological and belief factor it seems that political persuasion is by far the major correlate of ACC. This provides useful information for those trying to change the publics ACC. On the other hand, it is important to acknowledge the nature of the sample and the measures we used to conclude that political beliefs are necessarily the major determinant of all aspects of a person's ACC.

 

Findings suggest that highly altruistic individuals believe that others deserve help regardless of their potential moral shortcomings

Beliefs about Humanity, not Higher Power, Predict Extraordinary Altruism. P. Amormino et al. Journal of Research in Personality, October 31 2022, 104313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2022.104313

Abstract: Using a rare sample of altruistic kidney donors (n = 56, each of whom had donated a kidney to a stranger) and demographically similar controls (n = 75), we investigated how beliefs about human nature correspond to extraordinary altruism. Extraordinary altruists were less likely than controls to believe that humans can be truly evil. Results persisted after controlling for trait empathy and religiosity. Belief in pure good was not associated with extraordinary altruism. We found no differences in the religiosity and spirituality of extraordinary altruists compared to controls. Findings suggest that highly altruistic individuals believe that others deserve help regardless of their potential moral shortcomings. Results provide preliminary evidence that lower levels of cynicism motivate costly, non-normative altruistic for strangers.

People's political views predict which alternatives to reality they will find most plausible, will be most likely to spontaneously imagine, and will view as sufficient evidence of a conclusion

Polarized imagination: partisanship influences the direction and consequences of counterfactual thinking. Kai Epstude, Daniel A. Effron and Neal J. Roese. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. October 31 2022. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0342

Abstract: Four studies examine how political partisanship qualifies previously documented regularities in people's counterfactual thinking (n = 1186 Democrats and Republicans). First, whereas prior work finds that people generally prefer to think about how things could have been better instead of worse (i.e. entertain counterfactuals in an upward versus downward direction), studies 1a–2 find that partisans are more likely to generate and endorse counterfactuals in whichever direction best aligns with their political views. Second, previous research finds that the closer someone comes to causing a negative event, the more blame that person receives; study 3 finds that this effect is more pronounced among partisans who oppose (versus support) a leader who ‘almost' caused a negative event. Thus, partisan reasoning may influence which alternatives to reality people will find most plausible, will be most likely to imagine spontaneously, and will view as sufficient grounds for blame.

5. General discussion

Our four studies shed new light on how partisan beliefs relate to counterfactual thinking. Partisans find a given counterfactual more plausible when it aligns with their views (studies 1a and 1b), selectively generate counterfactuals that align with their views (study 2), and deploy counterfactuals that support preferred moral judgements about leaders (study 3). In summary, partisanship predicts both the content and the conclusions of counterfactual thoughts.

Our research makes several theoretical contributions. Our main contribution is to demonstrate how partisanship qualifies two empirical regularities in the counterfactual thinking literature. First, whereas previous research demonstrated an overwhelming preference for upward over downward counterfactuals (e.g. [31]), studies 1a–2 found a complete reversal of this preference when downward counterfactuals aligned with participants' views. That is, partisans in our studies flexibly generated and endorsed counterfactuals in whichever direction best aligned with their political views on a particular issue (supporting H1a over H1b). One explanation is that prior research tended to examine situations in which people were motivated by a desire to discover ‘how things could be better,' whereas partisans tend to be more motivated by a desire to justify and defend their political views.

The second empirical regularity we qualify is that the closer someone comes to causing a negative event, the more blame that person receives (e.g. [19]). Study 3 replicated this effect, but also showed that it is more pronounced among partisans who oppose (versus support) a leader who ‘almost' caused a negative event (supporting H2). One explanation is that when people dislike a leader, they lower their standards for what constitutes evidence of that leader's blameworthiness, giving more weight to imagined events—what could have happened under the leader's watch.

In short, partisan reasoning may influence which alternatives to reality people will find most plausible, will be most likely to spontaneously imagine, and will view as sufficient grounds for blame—thus creating important boundary conditions on previously documented effects.

Another theoretical contribution is that study 3 advances understanding of counterfactual thinking's role in moral judgement [32]. In some cases, downward counterfactual thinking connects to more-lenient moral judgements [33]—a contrast effect. For example, participants felt licensed to act in a less-than-virtuous manner after they reflected on the sinful actions they could have (but did not) performed [25,26]. In other cases, downward counterfactual thinking results in harsher moral judgements [34]—an assimilation effect. Study 3 suggests that the extent to which downward counterfactual thinking produces harsher moral judgements depends on partisanship. When partisans disliked a president, downward counterfactual thinking was more tightly associated with blaming that president. That is, the closer people thought a negative event came to occurring, the more likely they were to blame the president, especially if the president was opposed by the partisan. Our findings thus raise the possibility that motivation influences how much of an assimilation effect result from downward counterfactual thinking. Future research should further examine this possibility.

Third, our results contribute to a debate about whether conservatives are more prone to cognitive biases than are liberals (cf. [1,35,36]). Our results suggest that partisanship connects to counterfactual thinking among people at both ends of the political spectrum (i.e. Democrats and Republicans). That said, our results contain nuance. In studies 1a–2, Democrats and Republicans alike were more inclined to endorse and generate counterfactuals that were aligned (versus misaligned) with their views—but this effect was larger among Democrats. In study 3, people's tendency to blame a president they opposed for negative events that nearly happened was larger among Trump supporters than Biden supporters—but participants' tendency to praise a president they supported for having averted negative events was larger among Biden than Trump supporters. Future research should assess the generality of these patterns and pinpoint why they emerge. However, our results do not support the possibility that, when it comes to counterfactual thinking, conservatives show more partisan bias than do liberals.

As noted, our results are consistent with the idea that partisans engage in motivated counterfactual thinking. That is, the content and conclusions of their counterfactual thinking may reflect their desire to justify their political beliefs and to blame leaders they oppose. However, like most partisan effects in political psychology [16], ours could also be explained by non-motivated processes. For example, Republicans could be more likely than Democrats to think that ‘things would have been better’ without a particular Democratic policy because Republicans have been exposed to more information about that policy's shortcomings. Meanwhile, Democrats could be more likely than Republicans to blame Trump for ‘almost' causing war with North Korea because only Democrats are more likely to have the prior that Trump makes bad decisions. Of course, the priors and indeed the information to which partisans have been exposed may themselves have motivated origins, which illustrates the challenge of distinguishing motivated from purely cognitive processes [17]. In practice, both types of processes may work together [37].

Representing alternatives (self-generated possibilities, hypotheticals, simulations and non-actualities) to actual present experience is itself essential to the hippocampus

Imagination as a fundamental function of the hippocampus. Alison E. Comrie, Loren M. Frank and Kenneth Kay. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. October 31 2022. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0336

Abstract: Imagination is a biological function that is vital to human experience and advanced cognition. Despite this importance, it remains unknown how imagination is realized in the brain. Substantial research focusing on the hippocampus, a brain structure traditionally linked to memory, indicates that firing patterns in spatially tuned neurons can represent previous and upcoming paths in space. This work has generally been interpreted under standard views that the hippocampus implements cognitive abilities primarily related to actual experience, whether in the past (e.g. recollection, consolidation), present (e.g. spatial mapping) or future (e.g. planning). However, relatively recent findings in rodents identify robust patterns of hippocampal firing corresponding to a variety of alternatives to actual experience, in many cases without overt reference to the past, present or future. Given these findings, and others on hippocampal contributions to human imagination, we suggest that a fundamental function of the hippocampus is to generate a wealth of hypothetical experiences and thoughts. Under this view, traditional accounts of hippocampal function in episodic memory and spatial navigation can be understood as particular applications of a more general system for imagination. This view also suggests that the hippocampus contributes to a wider range of cognitive abilities than previously thought.

5. Organization and origin of generative activity in the brain

Having reviewed multiple types of generative neural activity in the hippocampus, we turn to our next question of how generative representations may be organized and ‘parsed’ from representations of actual, ongoing experience. One would expect that neural processes are in place to separate actual and generative activity to avoid their confusion, reminiscent of the subject-level ability to internally distinguish actual from imagined experience [4]. Multiple organizational schemes are possible; different sets of neurons could participate in actual versus generative representations, these representations could occur at different relative times, or some combination of these schemes could take place.

Findings in the rodent hippocampus indicate that neural firing corresponding to actual and generative representations occur at different relative times that are internally determined [105]. Generative representations tend to occur not only with temporal separation from representations of actuality, but also in alignment with underlying network-level activity patterns in the hippocampus that are internally generated: SWRs and the theta rhythm (figure 3a) [68,106]. This results in a serial alternation of neural firing corresponding to actuality and generativity, or a temporal ‘multiplexing’ of actual and generative representations in the brain.

This serial alternation is present across behavioural states. During immobility, neural firing corresponding to the animal's actual present location is maintained for prolonged periods, transiently suppressed during SWR events that typically contain generative replays (tens to hundreds of milliseconds), and then subsequently restored (figure 3) [106,107].

Similarly, during movement and exploratory behaviours, neural firing corresponding to actual present and non-actual alternative experience, or actual and generative representations, occurs serially and in alignment with characteristic phases of the theta rhythm [3,68]. More specifically, early phases characteristically contain representations of the animal's actual past and present experience, while late phases may contain firing corresponding to a variety of hypothetical experiences, resulting in alternating actual and generative representations (examples in figure 2, schematic in figure 3) [68]. Furthermore, there are multiple levels of alternation between actual and generative activity during movement—representations not only alternate within approximately 125 ms theta cycles (e.g. actual and upcoming position), but also across consecutive theta cycles (e.g. alternation of two possible paths ahead; figure 2) [68]. Additional findings are also consistent with the idea that multiple representations can be accommodated in the hippocampus via serial alternation at a sub-second timescale. For instance, studies in the rat hippocampus have reported theta-modulated ‘flickering’ between representations of two environmental contexts, as well as dynamic switching between two spatial reference frames, and separate reverse and forward-ordered location sequences within theta cycles [108–110].

The organization of actual and generative neural firing in the hippocampus also extends to other brain areas, consistent with the engagement of a distributed network in these representations [20,111,112]. Network-level neural activity patterns underlying generative representations can be coherent across the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex during replays and along the theta rhythm, with some reports of concurrent expression of actual versus alternative location representations across both regions [107,113–117]. Additionally, some generative firing events in the hippocampus are not only coordinated with but also predicted by the activity of cells in the medial prefrontal cortex [70]. Numerous other cortical and subcortical areas also share coordinated firing patterns with the hippocampus, during both replay events and the theta rhythm [67,118–125]. Recruitment of a large network of brain areas during activity related to actual and generative experience appears to reflect brain-wide organization, and the question of how firing patterns in other regions across the brain specifically contribute and respond to generative representations in the hippocampus remains an active area of research [113,122].

How might organized generative neural firing patterns in the hippocampus come about through hippocampal and extrahippocampal processes? This remains largely unknown, but some initial points can be made. First, one would expect generative firing patterns, which do not correspond to immediately ongoing circumstances, to arise primarily from internally driven activity patterns, as opposed neural activity driven directly by external stimuli. Consistent with this, generative events are observed during SWRs and in association with the theta rhythm—and both of these activity patterns are generated internally in the brain (spontaneously) rather than elicited by external stimuli [76,126]. More specifically, SWRs spontaneously occur during sleep in the absence of dynamic sensory stimuli and can be intrinsically generated in isolated hippocampal slices in vitro [76]. Hippocampal theta oscillations arise in vivo in coordination with a rhythm generator region, the medial septum, and can also be generated in isolated rodent hippocampus in vitro [127,128]. Furthermore, late phases of theta, during which generative representations tend to occur, are associated with increased recurrent network activity from within the hippocampus, and relatively weaker influence from cortical areas that are thought to provide multimodal information to the hippocampus [63,67,129,130].

While SWR and theta oscillations are understood to be internally generated and are associated with the occurrence of generative neural firing patterns in the hippocampus, the question of how specific groups of neurons (such as place cells with overlapping place fields) are recruited during generative events remains open [131]. In addition to mechanisms that support SWR and theta generation, it is likely the case that input from brain regions beyond the hippocampus have a role in this process [67]. One possibility is that the activation of particular sets of spatially tuned neurons during generative events is guided by extrahippocampal areas, such as the prefrontal cortex, that are also implicated in the default mode network [20]. This possibility is consistent with evidence that cortical activity can predict generative spiking during theta oscillations several cycles in advance, as well as SWR activity during sleep, and would argue against the idea that hippocampal ensembles are activated by exclusively unstructured input [70,125]. Studies focusing on the internal correlates of generative activity within the brain, over external behavioural correlates, may be especially important to understand what determines the generative neural firing patterns observed in the hippocampus.

The segregation of generative and actual representations in the hippocampus also raises the question of whether the hippocampus further differentiates subtypes of generative representations. For example, are events that reflect veridical experience from the past somehow distinguished from those that reflect constructed alternatives, or those that are predictive of future choices? At the level of neural firing, it remains unclear whether or how the hippocampus might separate these possible representations. However, two points of reference in the human literature offer clues that the relevant neural substrates may be outside the hippocampus. First, patients with hippocampal amnesia can entertain thoughts that distinguish the past or the future, despite impairments in episodic memory [132,133]. Additionally, hippocampal activation during mental simulations without temporal placement versus those specifically set in the future result in similar activation levels in the medial temporal lobe and default mode network [132,134]. These results are consistent with the idea that temporally differentiating representations related to the past or the future may not be hippocampally dependent. Second, healthy human subjects can subjectively discriminate internally and externally derived information, an ability known as reality monitoring [135]. Based on functional imaging studies in both healthy subjects and patients with schizophrenia who experience hallucinations, reality monitoring is thought to rely primarily on prefrontal cortical networks [112]. By contrast, another study reports that hippocampal activation was similar across cases of true and false recognition memory [136], further suggesting that this ability does not strictly rely on the hippocampus. Although probing reality monitoring in rodents is not straightforward, it would be notable if, for example, frontal cortical firing patterns systematically differed based on the representation of possibilities in the hippocampus that reflected veridical experience versus constructed alternatives. Such a result would be consistent with the idea that the hippocampus alone may not distinguish subcategories of generative events, but that the brain may do so via the engagement of prefrontal circuits.

Looking beyond rodents, it remains an open question as to which patterns of generative activity in the hippocampus are shared across species [137]. On the one hand, SWRs have been observed in a range of vertebrates, as have neural reactivation patterns suggestive of replay [138–144]. In humans, replay and replay-like patterns have also been reported, including activity patterns consistent with reactivating prior experience, as well as inferred sequential activity that is not simply recapitulative [145–149]. By contrast to the ubiquity of SWRs across vertebrates, the theta rhythm appears to be more prominent and continuous in the rodent hippocampus than in various other species [137]. A notable example is the bat hippocampus, which shows network-level activity fluctuations that are not generally rhythmic yet still organize place cell firing according to phase [140,150–153]. This may suggest that actual and generative representations can be organized via temporal multiplexing even in the absence of strong rhythmicity. In nonhuman primates and humans, the hippocampal theta rhythm appears to occur in intermittent bouts and at a lower frequency [140,150–153]. Recently, theta phase coding has also been shown in single cells in human subjects [154,155]. In all, these results indicate some conservation across species of the organization of neural firing with respect to network-level hippocampal activity. More generally, they leave open the possibility that the brains of many species temporally multiplex actual versus generative internal representations.

Conspiracy theories explain distressing events as malevolent actions by powerful groups. Why do people believe in secret plots when other explanations are more probable?

Do Conspiracy Theorists Think Too Much or Too Little? Nadia M. Brashier. Current Opinion in Psychology, October 31 2022, 101504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101504

Abstract: Conspiracy theories explain distressing events as malevolent actions by powerful groups. Why do people believe in secret plots when other explanations are more probable? On the one hand, conspiracy theorists seem to disregard accuracy; they tend to endorse mutually incompatible conspiracies, think intuitively, use heuristics, and hold other irrational beliefs. But by definition, conspiracy theorists reject the mainstream explanation for an event, often in favor of a more complex account. They exhibit a general distrust of others and expend considerable effort to find ‘evidence’ supporting their beliefs. In searching for answers, conspiracy theorists likely expose themselves to misleading information online and overestimate their own knowledge. Understanding when elaboration and cognitive effort might backfire is crucial, as conspiracy beliefs lead to political disengagement, environmental inaction, prejudice, and support for violence.

Keywords: conspiracy beliefscognitive effortheuristicsdeliberationinformation seeking