RationallyBiasedCognitionAStudyofIdeologicallyMotivatedInformationProcessing

AlexSernyak

AdvisorDanKahan

YaleDepartmentofCognitiveScience

SeniorThesis

April21,2017

Sernyak 1

ABSTRACT

Thisthesisattemptstoaddtotheliteratureonsystematicbiasesthatoccurin

politicallymotivatedreasoning.Bothliberalsandconservativesdisplayideologically

motivatedcognitiononavarietyofissues;inotherwords,theyusereasontofitevidenceto

previouslyheldconvictions.Intelligenceandeducationhasbeenshowntoincrease

polarizationandincreasebiasinpoliticalinformationprocessing,ashigherlevelsof

intelligenceallowforgreaterdexterityinfittingfactstoanarrative.Thiseffectwasfurther

studiedbyusingtheWasonselectiontask,alogicaltestcommonlyusedtoinvestigate

reasoningcapacity.Thetestproveddifficultforthesamplepopulation,andveryfewwere

abletocorrectlysolvetheprompt.Thethesisalsoattemptstodeterminewhetherbias

extendsbeyondthecontextoflogicalreasoningandpolicy.Theconjunctionfallacy,atestof

narrativerichness,wasusedtoseewhethersubjectsviewedmembersoftheopposing

ideologyasimmoral.Whilethereweremodesteffectsintheideologicalconditions,the

referencedisplayedthemostsignificantresults,asconservativesweremorelikelytomake

theconjunctionfallacythanliberalswhentheimmoralbehaviorwasascribedtoanex-

convict.PolarizationincreasedathigherlevelsoftheCognitiveReflectionTest,atestof

propensitytouselogic,suggestingrationalitymaypromoteamorenarrativelyrich

worldview.

Sernyak 2

TABLEOFCONTENTSABSTRACT……………………………………………..………………………………………………………1

INTRODUCTION……………………………………..………………………………………………………3

BACKGROUNDINFORMATION……..………………………………………………....……3

IMPLEMENTS………………………………………………………………………………....….12

METHODS……………………………………………………..………………………………………………16

HYPOTHESES………………………………………………………………………………....……………..24

RESULTS……………………………………………………..………………………………………………..28

DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………………………………..…….38

FUTUREDIRECTIONS……………………………………………………………………………………41

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………………………………46

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………………………47

APPENDIX………………..…….…...…………………………………………………………………………57

Sernyak 3

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUNDINFORMATION

ThepopularityoftheAmericanpoliticalsystemhasplummeted,withhistorically

lowapprovalratingsofcongressandwiththemostrecentelectionfeaturingthemost

unpopularpresidentialcandidatesever(Gallup,Enten,2016).Thebuzzwordpolarization

hasbeenthrownaroundtheblogosphereandamongthetalkingheadsastherootofthese

issues.Thereportedproblemisthatthecountryisdivided:DemocratsandRepublicans

cannotagreeonanything,refusetoworktogether,andaremoreconcernedwithwinning

electionsthanhelpingtheAmericanpeople.Prophetically,GeorgeWashingtonwarnedof

theinherentproblematicnatureofatwopartysysteminhisfarewelladdress,imploring

thecountrytostayawayfromthetoday’smodeltoavoidpolarizingdeadlock(Washington,

1776).Butproblemsofpolarizationandbiasliedeeper.Whiletherearecertainlyissues

withthetwopartysystem,theydonotaccountfortheentiretyofobservedpoliticalbias.

Takeclimatechange,anillustrativeexampleoftenusedinstudiesofpoliticalbias.Despite

thefactthat99%ofclimatescientistsagreethatclimatechangeiscausedbyman(Powell,

2015),only48%percentofthegeneralpopulationholdthisviewpoint(PewResearch

Center).Theproblemisnotsolelywithintheconfinesofthesystem,butliesinthevery

waypeoplethink.Researchconcerninginformationprocessinginpoliticalcontextcanlead

tosmarterpolicies,allowingfordebatesthatarenothamperedbythesystematicbiases.

Thisthesisseekstocontinuetoaddtotheunderstandingofthecomplexitiesofpolitical

bias.UsingdatafromastudyintheCulturalCognitionProjectaboutattemptstoimprove

theCognitiveReflectionTest(SeeAppendixAandBfordetailsofthisstudy),thisthesis

aimstoaddtothecurrentliteratureonpolarizationandmotivatedbeliefs.

Sernyak 4

SCIENCECOMPREHENSIONTHESIS

Oftentheblameforpoliticalpolarizationislackofeducation.Manypeoplebelieve

thatwithamoreeducatedpopulaceavarietyofpositionsonpolarizedissues,suchasgun

controlorclimatechange,wouldconvergeinthefaceoffacts.Inthismodel,conservatives

wholackpropereducationsimplydonotrealizethepreponderanceofevidenceinfavorof

thecauseofglobalwarmingbeinghumans.Thisclassictheoryforwhycertainpolitical

disagreementsarise,despiteapreponderanceofevidencepointingtowardsonesolution,is

the“ScienceComprehensionThesis”.Thesametheoryisoftenappliedtoavarietyofissues,

andisoftenusedbyliberalstoclaimthatifonlythepublicwerebettereducatedaboutthe

issues,polarizationwoulddecrease.Yetwhilethistheoryisintuitivelysatisfying,thereis

littleevidentialsupportforitsvalidity(anddirectlycontradictoryevidencethatwillbe

discussedlater).Infact,thesatisfyingnatureofthetheoryisquitedetrimental,asmuchof

thefocusoncombattingpolarizationcentersoneducationalreform(seeNewYorkTimes

EditorialBoard,2015).Polarizationneedstobescientificallystudied,notintuitively

understoodinordertocreatemoreproductivepolicies,scientificcommunicationtactics,

anddebates.Theproblemmaynotbetheunderlyinginformationusedtoengagewiththe

issuesbutamoreinherentissueduetotheverywaypeoplethink.

CONSERVATIVISMASSOCIALCOGNITION

Thereisatrendinsocialpsychologytoconsiderdifferencesincognitivestylebased

onideology,largelyplacingtheblameofpolarizationonconservatives.Thetheoryisthat

conservativesaremorefearful,biased,prejudiced,andlessreliantonrationality.There

definitelymaybesometruthtotheclaimthereisadifferencebetweenconservativesand

liberals.Liberalsareseenasmoreeducatedbecausetheyare,andthedifferenceisgrowing

Sernyak 5

(PewResearchCenter).Thereisalsoarobustbodyofliteraturethatpointstoadifference

incognitionbetweenthoseontheleftandtheright.Asearlyasthe50’snegativeresults

werebeingreportedaboutconservatives,asAdornoshowedconservativestobemore

authoritarian(Adorno,1950).Ina2008metanalysisthisresultwasreiterated,and

furthermorethatconservativeswerelessopenmindedandlessagreeable(Sibley&

Duckitt,2008).Conservativesareoftenseenasmoreindividualistic,andhavingamore

structuredpictureoftheworld,beinglessopentochange,greaterfeardeath,dealin

absolutes,andaremorereliantandtrustingofinstitutions(Jostetal.,2003,Sibley&

Duckitt,2008,Deppeetal.m2015).Lowintelligencehasalsobeenlinkedtoconservatism,

asconservativessenatorswereshowntomakelesscomplexcommentsonpolicyevenafter

controllingforothervariablessuchaseducation(Tetlock,1983).Conservativeswerealso

foundtohavelowercognitiveability(Hodson&Busseri,2012)andtohaveincreased

prejudice(Hodson&Busseri,2012,Jostetal.,2003).Theyhavealsobeenshowntobe

moreimpactedbyemotionalstates,especiallyincasesoffearanddisgust.Whendisgust

wasactivated,participantswereshowntobemorefearfulofimmigrationanddisdainfulof

homosexuals,andthisresultwasfoundmoreprominentlyinconservatives(Terrizzi,

Shook&Ventis,2010,Eskine,Kacinik&Prinz2011).Moregenerallyconservativeswere

linkedtohigherlevelsofdisgustaswellasgreaterdisgustsensitivity(Inbar,Pizarro,Iyer&

Haidt2011).FindingssuchastheseledJosttosuggestinhismetanalysisthatconservatism

shouldbethoughtofasasocialcognition.Ifthistheoryweretrue,itwouldmake

polarizationaninevitableproductoftheconservativemind.

Recentresultshavechallengedthetheoryofconservatismasasocialcognition,as

similarbiaseshavebeenfoundinliberalsandconservatives.Thesebiasestypicallyarisein

Sernyak 6

situationswhenanoutcomedoesnotfitadesiredworldview.Takeharmreductionasa

policytomitigatethenegativeeffectsofdrugaddiction.Theoppositiontoharmreduction

strategieslikeneedleexchangeisoftenseenasblightontheconservativepsyche.

Conservativesaresodisgustedbydrugusagetheyareunabletoputinapolicythathas

beenshowntohelppeople,astheyfeelsomehowcomplicit.Yetarecentstudyshows

similarpatternsinliberals,whoarereticenttosupportharmreductionstrategiesin

similarlymoralizedissuessuchasfemalecircumcision(MacCoun,2013).Infact,inmany

studiesofpoliticalreasoningitseemssimilarpatternsemergeinliberalsand

conservatives.Bothgroupsdistrustedsciencemoreifgivenscientificevidencethatclashed

withtheirworldview(Nisbetetal.,2015,Lewandowsky&Oberauer,2016).Liberalsare

similarlybiasedagainstideologicallydissimilargroupsasconservatives(Brandtetal.,

2014).Thebeliefintheirrationalityofconservativesmaybeenaproductofalackof

diversityinsocialpsychology.Liberalscientistandtheorists,whosepoliticalviewsmay

havecoloredtheirperception,reportedmostoftheseresults.Theyalsowerelookingat

issuesinwhichconservativesarebiased,leadingtounfavorableresultsfortheright

(Duarteetal.,2015).Ultimately,whiletheremaybedifferencesbetweenliberalsand

conservatives,amorenuancedviewoftheissueisnecessary,andpoliticalbiasisclearly

presentonbothsides.

FUNDAMENTALIRRATIONALITY

Anotheranglemaybenecessarytofullyunderstandthephenomenonof

polarization.Essentially,thereisafundamentaldichotomyofhumanthought:intuitive,

automaticSystem1Processes,anddeliberate,rationalSystem2processes(Kahneman,

2011)(ForamoreindepthanalysisofthedifferencebetweenSystem1and2Processes

Sernyak 7

seeAppendixA).PoliticaldecisionswouldhopefullybemadewithSystem2processes,yet

peopledonotalwaysseemtoapproachpoliticsrationally.Takevoting,forexample,which

seemstobeaSystem2process,asoneneedstoevaluatethepoliciesofeachcandidateand

cometoadecision.Yetitseemsintuitivejudgmentsonmeaninglesscharacteristicssuchas

looksfactorheavilyintodecision-making(SeeDruckman,2003forananalysisoftheNixon

Kennedydebate,Todorovetal.,2005).Otheremotionalaffectscanimpactpoliticaldecision

makingaswell(Huang,Sedlovskaya,Ackerman&Bargh,2011,Eskine,Kacinik&Prinz

2011).Thereseemstobeanelementofirrationalityandadisconnectbetweenthecorrect

useofSystem1and2processes,butthisdoesnotfullyexplainissuessuchaspolarization.

Ifthiswerethereason,polarizationwouldbemitigatedbyrelianceonlogic.TheCognitive

ReflectionTest,orCRT(SeeAppendixBformoredetail),hasbeenshowntobeareliable

testofthepropensitytouselogicalSystem2processes,(Toprak,West&Stanovich,2014),

yetthishasnotbeenshowntodecreasepolarization(Kahan,2012).Neitherhavemore

traditionaltestsofintelligencesuchasnumeracy(Kahan,2013).Theoppositehasshown

tobethecase;asinathesestudiesthemeasuresoflogicalabilitywereshowntoincrease

polarization,andtheimplicationsoftheseresultswillbediscussedshortly.Sowhilethere

maybeelementsofirrationalityinpoliticalthought,itcannotexplainthephenomenonof

polarization.Infactrationalityseemsdirectlylinkedtopoliticalpolarization.

MOTIVATEDREASONING

Theremaybeaneedforimprovedscienceeducation,andpeoplemayinherentlybe

biased,butnoneofthesetheoriescanexplainthephenomenonthispaperisinterestedin:

howpeople,inthefaceofoverwhelmingevidence,remainpolarizedonclimatechange,

believeinbirtherism,andbendinformationtofittheirownnarrative.Inrecentyears,

Sernyak 8

politicalbiashasbeenthoughtofasaformofmotivatedreasoning.Motivatedreasoning

occurswhenhumansprocessevidencepresentedtotheminawaythatconfirms

previouslyheldconclusions.PerhapsthemostfamousexampleisthatoftheSeekers,a

groupwhopredictedtheapocalypseinthe1950’s,yetwhenthatdatecame,andno

apocalypseoccurred,thegroupdoubleddownontheirbeliefstatingtheapocalypsehad

beenavoidedduetotheirfaith(Festinger,Riecken&Schachter1959).Thenewpieceof

evidence,thefactthattheapocalypsehadnotoccurred,paradoxicallyledthemtobelieve

evenmorestronglythattheprophecywasreal.

Therearemanywaysinwhichthistypeofself-deceptioncanoccur.Mysidebias,or

confirmationbias,istheprocessbywhichpeoplebolstertheirownopinionbyinterpreting

information,seekingevidence,ortestinghypothesisinwaysthatwillconfirmtheir

previouslyheldbeliefs(Stanovich&West,2007,Nickerson,1998,Chen,1999,Greenetal.,

2002,Westfalletal.,2015,Kunda,1990).Thisbiasisapartofcognitivedissonancetheory,

whichpositsthatpeoplewantalltheirbeliefstobeheldinharmony,andwillworktoget

themtoalign(Festinger,1962).Thisalsoresultsinpeoplecompensatingwheninformation

goesagainsttheirworld-view,bytryingtofindwaystoreconcilethisdissonant

information(Proulxetal.,2012).Sonotonlydopeopleavoidinformationthatchallenges

theirworldview,whentheycomeacrossittheyattempttodismissit.

Haidtproposedatheoryofmoraljudgmentswheredecisionsaremadeintuitively,

andthenintelligenceandconsciousnessareusedtodefendthem.Asheputsit,human

intelligenceisusedmoreoftenintheroleofalawyerthanofscientist(Haidt,2000).An

illustrativeexampleofthesefallaciesisofthegenerallyover-optimisticnatureofthe

humanpopulation.Whenpredictingthefuture,animportantuseofreasoning,peopleare

Sernyak 9

likelytooverratetheirchildren’slikelyattributes,theirownlikelihoodofsuccess,and

underratetheprobabilityofnegativeeventssuchascanceroraccidents(Sharot,2011).

Theyalsoarelikelytoratethemselvesasbetterthantheyare(Hoorens,1993),aswellas

createself-servingdefinitionsofambiguoustraitstoboosttheirratings(Dunning,

Meyerowitz&Holzberg,1989).

Mysidebiasismitigatedbycertaincognitivetendencies.Whilestudieshaveshown

thatelementaryeducationdoesnothelpinformalreasoning(Perkins,1985),otherstudies

haveshownthatyearsincollegecandecreasebias(Toplak&Stanovich,2003).Motivated

reasoninghasbeenshowntobeunrelatedtointelligence(Stanovich&West,2007,

Klaczynski&Gordon,1996,Klaczynski&Robinson,2000).Intelligencewasshownto

increasebiasblindspots,orthetendencytoviewothersasmorebiasedthanoneself(West,

Meserve&Stanovich,2012).Yetwhileintelligenceisunrelatedtobias,areflective

cognitivestyle,asmeasuredbytheCRT,hasbeenshowntodecreasemysidebias(Toplak,

West&Stanovich,2001).Infact,itseemsasthoughmostpeoplehaveagreaterabilityto

decreasemysidebiasthentheynormallydisplay.Forexampleexperimenterswereableto

decreasemysidebiasthroughinstruction(Evansetal.,1994).Andparticipants

recommendedlessbiasedconclusionstoafictionalexperimenterthanwhenaskedabout

theirownconclusions(Greenhoot,Semb,Colombo&Schreiber,2004).Basically,people

oftenhavetheabilitytocometothecorrectconclusionuponreflection,butwilloftenbe

satisfiedwithamoreself-servinglogicalprocess.

IDENTIY-PROTECTIECOGNITIONTHESIS

AnalternatetotheScienceCognitionThesis(SCT),whichaccountsforPolitically

MotivatedReasoning,wasproposed:theIdentity-protectiveCognitionThesis(ICT).Not

Sernyak 10

onlydopeopleavoidcognitivedissonanceingeneral,butalsothereisextramotivationin

thisinstancetoremainwithaviewpointconsistentwithonesidentity.Thisisarational

response,asinthegrandschemeofthingsonehaslittleimpactonadebatesuchasclimate

change,buttheconsequencesofchangingopinionscanbedisastrous.Aliberalscientist

whocametotheconclusionthatclimatechangewasahoaxwouldbeostracized,aswould

anNRAmemberwhodecidedguncontrolwouldsavelives.Soingeneral,peopleavoid

havingpoliticalopinionsthatwedgethembetweentheirgroup(Kahan,2010).Itisnotthe

casethatpeopleareover-reliantonheuristics,itisthefactthattheysystematicallyfilter

informationtofittheirworldview(Stanovich,2013,Kahan,2015).Forexample,subjects

willratestudiesandargumentsmorefavorablyiftheyconformtopre-conceivedcriteria

(Lord,Ross&Lepper,1979,Fagerlin,Gready&Peterson,2002).

Asintraditionalexamplesofmysidebias,politicallymotivatedcognitiondoesnot

followaBayesianframework.Aperfectlylogicalthinkerwouldhaveaprior,then,upon

receivingnewinformation,wouldattempttoupdatetheirbeliefs.Alikelihoodratioofthe

newinformationshouldbemultipliedbythepriortogetaposteriorunderstandingofthe

subject.Inthismodel,accesstomoreinformationshouldalwaysbringposterior

likelihoodsclosertogether.Yetinstudiesthishasnotbeenshowntobethecase,asbeliefs

willnotconvergeinawaythatwouldbeconsistentwithaBayesianupdatingmodel

(Kahan,2015).Theoppositeiseventruecorrectionsofmisinformationactuallymake

ideologicallymotivatedindividualsmorecertainintheirbeliefs(Nyhan&Reifler,2006).

Thewayinwhichpoliticalthinkersintakeinformationisclearlyinfluencedbyfactorsother

thantheevidenceitself.

Sernyak 11

ThereseemstobeadistinctionbetweentheICTandmysidebias,asintelligence

playsaroleintheformerbutnotthelatter.Peopleusecognitiveresourcestocreatea

worldviewthatfitstheiridentity,andsmarterpeoplearebetteratfilteringinformation

thatkeepsthemincongruencewiththeirpeers(Kahan&Corbin,2016).Theyarebetterat

interpretingitinfavorableways,andbetteratlatchingontoitwhenitconfirmstheir

identity.Thisiswhybeliefscanactuallydivergeinthefaceofmoreeducationoraccessto

information(Kahan,2013).Forexample,participantsinoneconditionwereaskedto

determinefromexperimentalresultswhetheraskincreamhadworked,orinanother

conditionwhetheraguncontrolexperimenthadworked.Whenaskedabouttheskin

cream,intelligencecorrelatedwithbetterperformanceacrosstheboard.Intheguncontrol

condition,increasedintelligenceactuallyincreasedpolarization(Kahanetal.,2013).

Similarresultshavebeenfoundinpoliticallymotivatedreasoning(Kahanetal.,2012),but

notoutsideofthiscontext.Infact,mostmeasuresofcognitivecapacityhavebeenshownto

increasepolarization,demonstratingtheabilityofpeopletouselogictoprotecttheir

worldview.TheCRThasbeenshowntoincreasepolarization(Kahan&Stanovich,2016),as

hastheActivelyOpen-mindedTest(Kahan&Corbin,2016).Thepropensitytouselogic

allowsforbetterprotectionofidentityasthemindattemptstokeepthesociallyexpedient

beliefsinplace.

THEROLEOFCULTUREANDIDENTITY

Ratherthancometopoliticalopinionsindependentlybyweighingtheprosand

cons,groupmembershipplaysalargepartinhowpeoplethink.Culturehasbeenshownto

formmassopinions(Wildavsky,1987).ThesefindingsareconsistentwiththeICT;as

groupidentityisthemostimportantfactorindeterminepoliticalthought.Andcontraryto

Sernyak 12

popularbelief,everythingdoesnotbreakdownuponpartylines.Forexample,inastudy

askingaboutOutpatientCommitmentLaws(OCLs),thebreakdowninopinionwasalong

culturalaffiliation,especiallybetweenegalitariancommunitariantypesandhierarchical

individualists(Kahan,Braman,Monahan,Callahan&Peters,2010).Infact,identityisoften

moreimportantindeterminingworld-viewthanideology(Kahan,2012,Kahan,Braman,

Slovic,Gastil,&Cohen,2007).Peopleusuallyformopinionsandevaluationsthatlineup

withtheirculturalidentityanddefiningvalues(KahanandBraman,2006).Forexample,a

strongbelieverincapitalismandthepowerofinnovationwillbelesslikelytoratetherisks

ofclimatechangehighlyasdoingsowouldrequireacriticalevaluationoftheroleof

businessinsociety(Kahan,Braman,Slovic,Gastil,&Cohen,2007).Identityisdynamic

though,andwhengroupmembershipislesssalientindividualopinionswillnotadhereas

closelytogroup(Conover,1984).Framingclimatechangesolutionsasinnovativeandas

relatedtothefreemarketcandecreasepolarizationasacceptingclimatechangenolonger

presentsafundamentalchallengetoidentity(Kahan,2010).

IMPLEMENTS

COGNITIVEREFLECTIONTEST

Thegoalofthecurrentstudyistolookattheinteractionsbetweenlogical

propensityandideologyandhowthisinformspoliticalinformationprocessing.Three

measuresofcognitionweretakenallmeasuringdifferentthings.Everyparticipanttookthe

CRT,andfromtheretheywereplacedononeoftwotracks.Theyeithertookanumeracy

test,whichisameasureofnumericalintelligence(Welleretal.2012,Kahanetal.,2013),or

tookalongerversionoftheCRT(SeeAppendixA).BothnumeracyandCRThavebeen

showntoincreasepolarization(Kahan&Stanovich,2016)sotheoriginalCRTwastakenas

Sernyak 13

ameasureofcognitivecapacityasthegreatestnumberofsubjectshadtakenthistest.Itis

unclearexactlywhatdistinctionscanbemadebetweenthesemeasuresofcognitionina

politicalcontext,butallseemtocaptureasimilareffect.Allresultswerecheckedwithboth

numeracyandtheinclusiveCRTandthesamepatternsemerged,therewasjustalarger

errorinvolved,asthesamplepopulationwassmaller.

WASONSELCTIONTASK

Forfurtherunderstandingofmotivatedreasoning,thecurrentstudyusedthe

WasonSelectionTask.ThetaskwascreatedbyWasonin1966andisadifficultlogicaltest

aboutconditionalrules.Thetaskisperhapsthe“mostinvestigatedexperimentalparadigm

inthepsychologyofreasoning”(Maktelow,2012).Thegeneralstructureisasfollows,

participantsareaskedtodetermineifthefollowingruleistrue:“IfPthenQ”.Theyarethen

presentedwith4cardstoturnover,“P”,“Not-P”,“Q”,“not-Q”.Theyshouldturnoverthe“P”

cardandthe“not-Q”card,butparticipantswilloftenfollowtheirheuristicanswerand

matchthe“Q”cardwiththeprompt,turningitover,oroftentimestheywillnotturnover

the“not-Q”card(Wason,1966,Cox&Grigss,1982).Itisadifficulttask,withlowbaseline

ratesofcorrectreasoning.Oneofthereasonsithasbeensuchausefultooltostudy

reasoningcapacityisthatitisverycontextdependent.Forexample,peoplearebetter

whencontentevokesrelevantknowledgefrommemory,forexampletransportationuse

(ManktelowandOver,1990).Performanceonthetaskwasalsoimprovedwhenitwas

policingsocialinteractions(Tooby&Cosmides,1992).Thisresulthashadimportant

impactontherealmofevolutionarypsychology.

Motivationhasalsobeenshowntoincreaseperformanceonthetest.Subjectswere

morelikelytocometothecorrectconclusionthatthepromptwasincorrectwhenthe

Sernyak 14

prompt’smessagewasundesirable.Iftherulestatedtheyweremorelikelytohaveanearly

deaththeywouldbemorelikelytoturnoverthecorrectcardstodisprovethisclaim,butif

theruledidnotimplyanearlydeaththeywerelesslikelytotrytodisproveit(Daweson,

Gilovich,Regan,2002).Thisresultwasimportantindemonstratingthewaysinwhich

confirmationbiascomesabout.Forthisreason,theWasonSelectionTaskstandsasa

promisingtooltouseinthestudyofpoliticalbias.

CONJUNCTIONFALLACY

Theothertoolusedinthisthesisistheconjunctionfallacy,whichwasusedtolook

atnewareasinwhichbiasedcognitionmayoccur:whethertheyviewsimilarly

ideologicallymindedpeopleasmorallysuperior.Thereisreasontobelievethiswouldbe

thecase,asthereisarobustliteraturethatshowshumansviewpeoplemoresimilarlyto

themmorefavorably.In-groupout-groupbiasisacommonlyheldphenomenonthathas

beenappliedtopoliticsinthepast.Peoplefavorthosewhotheyviewasintheirgroup,and

aremorelikelytogivemoneytotheminexperimentalsettings.Thishasbeenobservedin

evenminimalgrouppairssuchaswhethertheylikeacertainpainting(Tajfeletal.,1971).

Groupsgivepeopleasenseofself-esteemandprovideaplaceintheworld,andthe

enhancementofone’sowngroupoverothersprovidesself-satisfactionbutalsoleadstothe

in-groupout-groupdynamic.Groupfavoritismhasbeenshowntoapplytobelief(Skitkaet

al.,2005).Yettheconjunctionfallacyprovidesanopportunityforamoreinterestingtest

thansimplyoneofwhetherdemocratslikerepublicans,astheanswertothatwouldmost

likelybethattheypreferthemselves.Theconjunctionfallacyprovidesawindowintothe

narrativerichnessofperson’srepresentations.

Sernyak 15

Theconjunctionfallacyisanexampleofabiasthatoccurswhenpeopleareover

reliantonintuitiveprocessestomakejudgments,orheuristics.Aheuristiccommonlyused

formakingevaluativejudgmentsistherepresentativenessheuristic(Tversky&Kahneman,

1983).Theheuristicisusedtomakeajudgmentbyevaluatingthedegreeof

correspondencebetweenandoutcomeandapreviouslyheldmodel(Tversky&Kahneman,

1983).Forexamplerobinsandpenguinsarebothbirds,butarobinismorerepresentative

(Tversky&Kahneman,1983).Thisheuristicallowsforeasyjudgmentswithoutneedingto

bringincognitivelyexpensiveSystem2processesinplay.(Kahneman,2011).

TverskyandKahneman,intheirfoundational1983study,foundthatratherthanuse

basiclawsofprobability,peoplewillrelyontheseheuristicstodeterminehowlikely

eventsare.Oneofthemostbasictenantsofprobabilityisthattheprobabilityofasingle

eventcannotbelessthantheprobabilityofthatandanotherevent.Subjectsweregiventhe

followingdescription:“Lindais31yearsold,single,outspoken,andverybright.She

majoredinphilosophy.Asastudent,shewasdeeplyconcernedwithissuesof

discriminationandsocialjustice,andalsoparticipatedinanti-nucleardemonstrations”.

Thedescriptionwasmeanttoelicittherepresentationofafeminist.Participantswere

askedwhetheritwasmoreprobablethatshewasabanktellerorabanktelleranda

feminist.Ofcourseitismoreprobablethatsheisabankteller,asthatsetincludesthe

secondoption.Yet85%ratedLindaasmoreprobablyabanktellerandafeminist(Tversky

&Kahneman,1983).Thisisbecausetheevent,Linda,fitstherepresentationoffeminist

betterthanbankteller,andthestrengthofthecausallinkisoverwhelmingprobability

judgments(Thüring&Jungermann,1990).

Sernyak 16

Theconjunctionfallacycanbeusedasatestofnarrativerichness,becauseforthe

fallacytooccurthesubjectmustviewthelinkbetweentheconditionanddescriptionas

strongandcausal.Forthisreasonithasoftenbeenusedasatooltodetermineto

robustnessofprejudice.Totestanti-atheistbiasastudywasdoneusingaconjunction

fallacypromptthatdescribeduntrustworthyandimmoralbehavior.Participantswere

muchmorelikelytofallfortheconjunctionfallacywhentheimmoralindividualwas

describedasanatheistasopposedtoothermajorreligions(Gervais,2014).Religious

peoplewerealsomorelikelytomaketheerrorthanatheistswere,althoughtheeffectstill

existed(Giddings&Dunn,2016).Informationpresentedtosubjectscouldalsomitigate

theseeffects,suchaslettingpeopleknowthatmostofthepopulationisatheist(Giddings&

Dunn,2016).Theconjunctionfallacywasalsousedtoshowthatthepublicholdsspecific

negativerepresentationsofscientists,despitetheirhighstatusinsociety.Theywereshown

tobethoughtofasimmoral,andwouldbreaknorms,buttheywerenotthoughtofas

deliberatelyevilorunfair(Rutiens&Heine,2016).Thecurrentstudyseekstousethis

implementandseewhatnegativerepresentationsaboundinapoliticalsetting.Thestudy

willlookattheeffectofideologyandintelligenceontheserepresentations.Theimmediate

goalistobegininvestigatingtheroleofintelligenceinmoralpoliticaljudgments,aswellas

narrativejudgments,lookingatpoliticalcognitionbeyondinformationprocessing.The

moregeneralpurposeofthispaperistoaddtotheliteratureonmotivatedreasoningand

begintoexplorepoliticalbiasinasimilarcontext.

METHODS

Thestudytestedmotivatedreasoningbyaskingavarietyofquestionsusedin

previousstudiesthatcanelicitbothheuristicandrationalresponses.Avarietyof

Sernyak 17

independentvariableswereassessedtotrytoparseoutwhatfactorscanpredictmotivated

reasoning.TasksusedweretheWasonselectiontasktomeasuremotivatedreasoningand

theconjunctionfallacytoassessbiasagainstpoliticalothers.Independentvariableswere

conditions,politicalideology,andcognitivecapacity.

POPULATION

ThesubjectsofthestudywereadiversesampleoftheUnitedStatesPopulation.

2800adultswererecruitedtoparticipatebyYouGov,andthesurveywasadministeredvia

thefirm’son-linetestingfacilities.Thesamplewas55%female,76%white,9.4%black,

and8%Hispanic.Themedianagewas47yearsold(SD=17).Participantswereaskedtheir

familyincomeona16pointscale:407declinedtorespond,andofthosewhodidthe

medianonthescalewasa5(SD=3.2),correspondingto$40,000-$49,00.Similarly

participantswereaskededucationlevelonascalefrom1(NoHighSchool)to6(Post

Grad):themedianscorewasa3(SD=1.4)correspondingtosomecollege.

STIMULUS1

ParticipantswereplacedintooneofthreeconditionstoansweraWasonSelection

Taskquestion.Ineachconditiontheywereaskedtoevaluatealogicalrule“IfP,thenQ.”

Theparticipantwasthenprovidedwithfourcardsasfollows:“P”,“Not-P”,“Q”,“not-Q”.

Thecorrectresponsewouldhavebeentoturnoverthe“P”cardandthe“not-Q”card,and

theywouldthenfindthattheprompttobefalse.

Thethreeconditionsaskedabouttaxbreaksfordifferenttechnologycompanies.In

thefirstconditionparticipantswereaskedtotesttheallegationthat:“Ifacompany

producedNano-Widgets,thentheIRSdeniedita‘novel-technologymanufacturer’tax

exemption.”Theparticipantswerethenaskedtoturnoverasfewcardsaspossibleinorder

Sernyak 18

todeterminewhetherornottheallegationwastrue.Theycardstheyturnedoverwere

recorded.

Figure1:ThecardsfacingtheparticipantintheNano-widgetWasonSelectionTaskcondition.

Figure2:TheundersideofthecardsintheNano-widgetWasonSelectionTaskcondition,whichthesubjectscouldseeiftheychosetoturnoverthecards.

Theallegationisfalseaccordingtothecards,whichbecomesclearafterturningover

card2.Followingalllogicalrulesaparticipantcouldeitherturncard3overfirst,thenturn

card2overandcometotheconclusionthattheclaimisfalse,ortheycouldjustturncard2

overandreachtheconclusion.Thisconditionconcernedanon-politicizedtechnologyto

haveareferencecondition.

Thelasttwoconditionsaskedforparticipantstousethesamelogicalprocesses,

excepttheallegationswereslightlymodified.Participantswereplacedeitherinaskeptical

Nano-widget

(1) (2) (3) (4)

ExemptionGiganto-widget Noexemption

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Exemption Nano-widget Noexemption Nano-widget

Sernyak 19

oralarmeddiscriminationcondition.Intheskepticalconditiontheallegationtheywere

askedtoinvestigatewas:“Ifascience-educationfoundationwas‘skepticalaboutclimate

change,’thentheDepartmentofEducationdeniedita‘science-education-foundation’

grant.”Thecardswereasfollows:

Figure3:Thecardsusedintheskeptical-discriminationconditionoftheWasonselectiontask.

Figure4:Theundersideofthecardsintheskeptical-discriminationcondition.

Inthealarmedconditiontheywereaskedtoinvestigatetheclaimthat:“Ifscience-

educationfoundationwas‘alarmedaboutclimatechange,’theDepartmentofEducation

arbitrarilydeniedita‘science-education-foundation’grant.”Thecardswerethesame

exceptthatalarmedandskepticalwereswitchedateveryspot(includingonthebacks).

Skeptical

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Alarmed Grant Nogrant

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Grant Nogrant SkepticalSkeptical

Sernyak 20

ThesamelogicalprocessesapplyinthealarmedandskepticconditionsasintheNano-

widgetcondition.

Thebreakdownwasasfollows:929subjectswereaskedaseparatequestionnot

discussedinthispaper,943subjectswereintheNano-widgetcondition,463subjectswere

intheskeptic-discriminationcondition,and465subjectswereinthealarmed-

discriminationcondition.Thedesignwasabetweensubjectsone,asparticipantswere

assignedtoonlyonecondition.

STIMULUS2

Participantswereplacedintooneofthreeconditionsandineachcondition

answeredoneconjunctionfallacyquestion.Allweregiventhesameprompt,whichwasas

follows:

Richardis31yearsold.Onhiswaytoworkoneday,heaccidentallybackedhiscarintoa

parkedvan.Becausepedestrianswerewatching,he got out of his car. He pretended to

write down his insuranceinformation.He then tucked the blanknote into the van’s

windowbeforegettingbackintohiscaranddrivingaway.

Laterthesameday,Richardfoundawalletonthesidewalk.Nobodywaslooking,sohetook

allofthemoneyoutofthewallet.Hethenthrewthewalletinatrashcan.

TheywerethengiventwodescriptionsofRichardandaskedwhichwasmorelikely.The

firstoptionremainedconstantthroughthethreeconditions:that“Richardisself-

employed”.InthereferenceconditiontheyweregiventheoptionofRichardasself-

employedandaconvictedfelon(ananswerwhich,accordingtothelawsofprobability,

mustbefalse).

Conditionswerecreatedtoindirectlytestwhetherpoliticalorientationwas

associatedwithdistrustinasimilarmannertoaconvictedfelon.Intheothertwo

conditionsthedescriptionswere:“self-employedandaverystrongsupporterofstrictgun

controllaws”and“self-employedandaverystrongopponentofstrictguncontrollaws”.

Sernyak 21

Thebreakdownwasasfollows:923wereintheex-convictcondition,918wereinthe

supportcondition,and959wereintheopposecondition.Thedesignwasabetween

subjectsone,asparticipantswereassignedtoonlyonecondition.

*Thetestwasadministeredfromthe8thofNovembertothe16thofDecember,2016.

INDEPENDENTVARIABLES

ExperimentalConditionwasanindependentvariablebetweensubjects.Besides

condition,afewvariableswereusedtopredictperformanceonthestimuli.

IDEOLOGY

Thefirstvariablewassubjects’politicalaffiliation.Twoquestionsaboutpolitical

affiliationattheendofthesurveyinthedemographicssectionwereusedtocreatea

measureofpoliticalideology.Forthefirstmeasuresubjectswereaskedtoranktheir

ideologyonafive-pointscale,rangingfromveryliberal(1)toveryconservative(5).Of

thosewhoanswered,themedianwas3(moderate),themeanwas3.1(SD=1.1),between

moderateandconservative.Thesecondmeasurewasaseven-pointscaleasking

participantstoranktheirpartyidentification,fromStrongDemocrattoStrongRepublican.

Ofthosewhoansweredthequestionthemedianwasa4(independent)andthemeanwas

3.8(SD=2.1),betweenleandemocraticandindependent.69subjectsskippedbothofthese

questionsandwereremovedfromtheanalysis.46subjectsansweredthefirstquestionbut

notthesecondquestionsotheywereassignedthemedianscoreonthesecondquestion.

211subjectsansweredthesecondquestion,butnotthefirstquestionsotheywere

assignedthemedianscoreonthefirstquestion.Theanswerstothetwomeasureswere

standardized(median=0,SD=1),andthenaddedtogetherandstandardizedagain.The

Sernyak 22

EntireSample

resultingscorewasusedasameasureforideologyhenceforthcalledideologyscore(for

short:ideo)(Cronbach’sAlpha=.76).

Figure5:Abreakdownofthesamplepopulation’sideologicalscores(calledideo).

CLASSICCRT

ShaneFrederick’soriginalCRT(Frederick,2005)testwasadministeredtoall

participants.Thetestisa3questionnumericinstrument,whichaimstotestcognitivestyle

andrelianceonlogic(forthetestquestionsandamoredetaileddiscussionoftheCRTsee

AppendixB).Itemresponsetheory(IRT)analysiswasusedtoweightthequestionsand

deriveascorefromthethree-questionimplement.IRTanalysisprovidesimproved

accuracyofanimplement,andcandifferentiatemorefinelythansimplyaggregatingthe

score(Primietal.,2015).Thisallowsformorepossiblescoresthantheoriginal3.

Nonetheless,theCRTisnotaperfectinstrumentevenafterIRTanalysis.59%ofsubjects

answeredzeroofthequestionscorrectly.Thisisslightlyhigherthanfoundationalstudies

MoreLiberal MoreConservative

Ideo

Sernyak 23

(Frederick,2005),butaslightlyhigherpercentageofzeroesmakessense,asthesubject

populationwasnottakenfromauniversity.ThescoreafterIRTanalysiswillbeknownas

CRTintheresultssections,andwasthechosenmeasureofcognitivefunctioning

(Cronbach’salpha=.69).Liberals(allparticipantswithideo<0)hadameanof.117(SD=

.80)ontheCRTscale,whileconservatives(ideo>0)hadameanof.085(SD=.76).

Figure6:Ontheleftisahistogramoftheentiresamplepopulation’sCRTscoresafterIRTanalysis.Ontherightisahistogramofliberalscoredensityoverlaidonahistogramofconservativescoredensity.

DATAANALYSIS

AvarietyofmodelswerecreatedfromthedatausingRStudioandGaryKing’sZelig

software.Logisticregressionsweredonewithallofvariablesinthesamemodel,inorder

tokeepthepowerofthemodel(Judd,2000).Foreachofthestimuli,conditionwasusedas

adummyvariable,witheachconditionbeingcodedasonewheninthatcondition,andthe

referenceconditionbeingactivatedwhenallconditionswerezero.Ideologicalscorewas

alsousedinthemodel,aswellasitsinteractionwithCRT.Correlationmatricesarein

EntireSample PoliticalSub-GroupSamples

CRTCRT

Liberals(ParticipantswithIdeo<0)

Conservatives(ideo<0)

Sernyak 24

AppendixCandgraphsweremadewithpredictionsfromthemodels.MarkovChainMonte

Carlosimulationswereusedtodetermineconfidenceintervals(King,2000).

IntheWasonSelectiontasktherewerethreeconditionscodedasdummyvariables,

nano-widget,climate-alarmist,andclimate-skepticdiscrimination.Thefirstoutcome

recordedwascorrectanswer,orwhetherparticipantratedthestatementasfalse.Other

logicalprocessesweretrackedaswell.Modelswerecreatedtotrackwhethercorrectlogic

wasusedtogettherightanswer,orwhetheranycardwasmorelikelytobechosen.

Skippedanswerswerecodedaswrong,asitshowedaninabilitytodealwiththesubject

matter.Fewpeopleskippedineitherconditionsoitdidnotimpacttheresultssignificantly.

Independentvariablesinthemodelwerecondition,ideologyandCRT.

Fortheconjunctionstimulustherewerethreeconditionscodedasdummy

variables,convict,supporter,andopponent.Theoutcomewasrecordedandamodelwas

createdtopredictwhatpercentageofpeoplewouldgetthepromptrightintheactual

population.Theonlydependentvariablelookedatwaswhethertheoutcomewascorrect.

Skippedanswerswerecodedaswrong.Independentvariablesinthemodelwere

condition,ideologyandCRT.

HYPOTHESIS

THEWASONSELECTIONTASK

TheWasonSelectionTaskisstrictlyalogicaltest,soresultsconsistentwiththe

Idenity-protectiveCognitionThesiswoulddemonstratesometypeofideological

motivation.Theexpectationisthatifanorganizationfromaperson’sidentitygroupwere

beingdiscriminatedagainst,theywouldbemotivatedtoprovethatwrongastheydonot

wantthattobethecase.Yettherearesometangentiallyrelatedresultsthatsuggestthe

Sernyak 25

oppositemightoccur.Peopleoftenclaimthattheyarebeingdiscriminatedagainst(seeIRS

targetingcontroversy)butareveryunlikelytoadmitthattheyarediscriminating.People

willalsoviewtheirin-groupasbeingtreatedmoreunfairly(Hastorf&Cantril,1954)and

mightbecomplacentandnotmotivatedtocorrecttheassertionthattheyarebeingtreated

unfairly.Asaresult,itisnotentirelyclearhowpeoplewillbemotivated,butthehypothesis

isthatinsomewaytheywillbe,whichwouldbecomeclearwhenresultsweremodeled.A

nullresultwouldmeaneitherthatthepromptdidnotinstigatemotivatedcognitionor

politicalbiasdidnotoccurforthistopic.Inthistask,participantsarenotnecessarily

motivatedtoprotecttheiridentityinthesamewaytheyarewhenevaluatingevidenceof

climatechange.Forthisreasontheirperformancemaynotdependheavilyonideology.

Figure7:TwopotentialpredictedresultsaredisplayedfortheWasonselectiontaskprompt.Ontheleftisapredictionifsubjectsdonotundergomotivatedreasoning,asperformancedoesnotincreasedependingonideologyinpolarizedconditions.Ontherightisapredictionforabroadlyapplicablemotivatedreasoningthesis.Subjectsaremuchbetterandworsedependingonideologyandcondition.

CONJUNCTIONFALLACY

Fortheconjunctionfallacyquestions,conditionshouldaffectthecorrectresponse

percentage.Theex-convictconditionshouldprovideagoodbaselineforhowa

PercentCorrect

Ideo

LiberalDesiredOutcome

ReferenceCondition

ConservativeDesiredOutcome

NoMotivatedReasoning MotivatedReasoning

Ideo

Sernyak 26

representativestorybehavesamongthepopulation.Theguncontrolconditionsmayor

maynotbeasrepresentativeastheex-convictconditions.Ideologyshouldinfluencethe

outcomeofthesequestions,asmostlikelypeoplewillviewRichardasmorenegativelyifhe

holdstheoppositepoliticalbeliefsasthem.Ifsothismeanspeoplearemorelikelyto

portrayideologicaldissimilarpeopleasimmoral.Itisveryunlikelythatpeoplewouldbe

morelikelytofallfortheconjunctionfallacyifRichardisdescribedashavingsimilarbeliefs

asthem.Ifthereisnoeffectofideologyonthepopulation’sviewofRicharditcouldeither

betheinstrumentisimprecise,orpeopledonotholdgenerallynegativeviewsofthosein

theoppositeparty.Whileinthisdayandagenationalpoliticshavebecomequitepolarized,

itisnotclearthatthisfervorandanimosityisheldonindividuallevel.Ifthenationhas

becomefullofzealots,theremaybeaverystrongbiasagainstthoseoftheopposite

ideology.Ifnot,lessdramaticresultswouldbeexpected.

Figure8:Ontheleftisapredictionforapopulationwheretherewasnotastronglynegativerepresentationofthosewithdifferingideology.Ontheleftisapredictionofasampleinwhichpartisansheldstronglynegativeviewsofthosewithdifferingideology.

PercentCorrect

NoBias

Ex-Con

IdeologicalBias

OpponentofGunControl

SupporterofGunControl

Ideo Ideo

Sernyak 27

ROLEOFCOGNITIVECAPACITY

Resultsshowingideologicalpolarizationwouldnotbeverysurprising,asthey

wouldfitinmostpoliticalbiasframeworks,includingtheSCT.Resultsconsistentwiththe

ICTwouldshowanincreasedpolarizationwithintelligence.TheWasonSelectionTaskis

veryhardandrequirestheuseoflogic,soitseemslikelyCRTwouldimproveperformance.

InanIdentityProtectionThesisthatindividualsaremotivatedtowilluselogictoaffirm

theirworldview.Ifresultsimprovedacrossallconditionsregardlessofmotivationtheway

inwhichinformationwasprocessedwouldmostlikelynotbeinordertoprotectidentity.

Figure9:Ontheleftmeasuresoflogicaltendencycorrelatewithincreasedpolarization.ThisresultfitswiththeIdentity-protectiveCognitionThesis.Ontherighttheuseoflogicimprovesperformanceacrossallconditionsandpolarizationdecreases.ThisresultfitswiththeScienceCognitionThesis.

Fortheconjunctionfallacy,resultscouldalsofollowsimilarpatternsasinfigure9.If

polarizationincreasesalongwithCRTtherecouldbeafewexplanations.Morelogical

peopleseembetteratfittinginformationtotheirworldview,andsoperhapstheymake

harshermoraljudgments.Theyalsocouldsimplybemorepolarizedingeneral.Whatever

thecase,itwouldbeclearthatthenarrativerichnesswouldincreaseforthosewithhigher

levelsofcognition.Infact,evenanullresultofCRTwouldbesignificant.Inprevious

SCTModelICTModel

PercentCorrect

CRT CRT

*solidlinesare

ideologically

agreeable

conditions

*dashedlinesare

ideologically

disagreeable

conditions

Sernyak 28

EffectofIdeology

studies,CRTwasshowntodecreasetheconjunctionfallacyintheLindaproblem

(Oechssler&Roider,2009).Or,ifmotivatedreasoningisnotafactor,performancemay

simplyincreaseacrosstheboard.

RESULTS

WASONSELECTIONTASK

Inthethreeconditions,nano-widget,alarmed,andskepticdiscrimination,noreal

effectwasseeninregardstocorrectansweroftheprompt,condition,andideology(see

Figure10).As,subjectswereaskedatruefalsequestionandresultshoveredaround50%

regardlessofconditionitseemedasthoughanswerswererandom.Thiswasbackedupby

thefactthat609participantshadpickedananswerwithoutturningoveranycards,and

theyansweredatsimilarratesasthosewhohadactuallyturnedovercards.

Figure10:LogisticregressionofallthreeconditionsfortheWasonselectiontask.Thedotsrepresentthemeanexpectedvalueandtheerrorbarsrepresent95%confidenceintervalsderivedfromanMCMCsimulation.About50%gettheanswercorrectregardlessofideologyorperformance.

Ideo

PercentCorrect

Alarmed-discrimination

Skeptical-discrimination

Nano-widget

Sernyak 29

Skeptical-discrimination Alarmed-discrimination

Liberal(ideo=-1)

TheeffectofCRTwasexaminedaswell,andtheredidseemtobeapositive

correlationbetweenCRTandperformance.Inallthreeconditions(seefigure10),CRT

improvedthechanceofgettingtheanswercorrect,althoughtheimprovementisslightand

therateneverrisessignificantlyabove50%.Thereisnosignificantinteractionbetween

ideologyandperformance,asliberalsandconservativesimprovesimilarlyoverevery

condition(aquicknote:inthesimulationsinfigure11andinallsubsequentsimulations

“liberals”arethepredictedvaluesofthemodelswhenideoissetto-1,whichis1SDleftof

centerinthesurveypopulation.Bluelinescorrespondtothis.Redlines,and

“conservatives”,correspondto1ontheideoscale,oroneSDrightofcenter).

Figure11:ThethreefiguresdemonstratetheeffectofCRToneachcondition.Ineachconditionbothliberals(liberal(ideo=1)inblueinthisgraphandallfuturegraphs)andconservatives(graphedinred)improveslightlyoverCRT,butnointeractioneffectsareobserved.

PercentCorrect

CRT CRT

CRT

Nano-widget

Conservative(ideo=1)

Sernyak 30

EffectofIdeology

Nextparticipant’slogicalabilitywastested:whethertheyturnedovertheright

cardsandgottheanswerright.Veryfewparticipantsusedthecorrectlogictogettothe

answer.Ofthe1210participantsthatansweredthediscriminationquestions,only4%

wereabletoidentifythecorrectcardstoturnover,aswellassubsequentlyanswerthe

questioncorrectly.Amodelwascreatedwiththecorrectansweralongwithcorrectlogical

processesastheoutput.Neitherideologynorconditionseemedtohaveaneffect,as

baselineratesofansweringthequestioncorrectlyweresolow(seefigure12).

Figure12:Noeffectsareobservedofideologywereobservedinpredictedvaluesofgettingtheanswercorrectlythroughtheproperlogicalprocesses.Ineachconditionmeanpredictedratesarebelow10%.

CRTwascorrelatedwithimprovedperformanceinthiscase,buttherewasagain

littledifferencebetweentheconditions(seefigure13).Ratesofsolvingthequestion

correctlywereprettylowupuntilveryhighlevelsofCRT.Themaxscoresomeonereceived

inthestudypopulationwasa1.8,andatthatscorenoconditionwassignificantlyabove

10%.Nosignificantinteractionoccurredbetweenideologyandintelligence,asineach

conditionconservativesandliberalsimprovedsimilarly.

Ideo

PercentLogicalandCorrect

Sernyak 31

Liberal

Figure13:Thesegraphsmodelcorrectanswersarrivedatlogicallyovereachconditionamongconservativesandliberals.Baselineratesareverylow,andwhileCRTimprovesperformance,thereislittledifferencebetweenconditions.

Thenextstepwastotrytoexpandthecriteriaforwhatwasconsideredlogical,

allowingforsomeextraneouscards,butloweringthebardidnotproduceanynew

patterns.Finally,modelswerecreatedforeachcard,toseeifanysystematiclogical

processesemerged.Therewassomerandomvariationbutnosignificanttrendsemerged

surroundinganyofthecards.Allthecardswereturnedoverabout2/3ofthetime,further

reinforcingtheideathatperformanceontheselectiontaskwaslargelyrandom.

CONJUNCTIONFALLACY

Theconjunctionfallacyprompthadhigherratesofsubjectsarrivingattheright

answer,asitwasconsiderablysimpler.36%ofpeoplegottherightanswerintheex-con

CRT

CRT

CRT

PercentLogicalandCorrect

Skeptical-discrimination Alarmed-discrimination

Nano-widget

Conservative

Sernyak 32

EffectofIdeology

condition(andtherefore64%fellforthefallacy),while74%gottherightanswerinthe

guncontrolsupporterconditionand70%gottherightanswerintheguncontrolopponent

condition.Therewereslightideologicaleffectsinthethreeconditions(seefigure14).For

allideologies,ratesofconjunctionfallacywerehighestintheex-convictcondition.Liberals

showedmorebiasedthanconservatives,astheywere8%(SE=3%)morelikelytofallfor

theconjunctionfallacywhenRichardopposedguncontrolthanwhenhesupportedit(see

figure15).Conservativeswerenotmorelikely(0%,SE=2%)toviewasupporterofgun

controlasimmoralbuttheresultwasnotsignificant.Themostdramaticresultwasactually

foundinthereferencecondition.Ratherthanactasabaselineratetocompareagainstthe

ex-convictconditionvariedbetweenliberalsandconservatives,asconservativeswere12%

(SE=3%)morelikelythanliberalstorateRichardasmorelikelytobeanex-convictand

self-employed(seefigure16).

Figure14:Logisticregressionofallthreeconditionsfortheconjunctionfallacy.Thedotsrepresentthemeanexpectedvalueandtheerrorbarsrepresent95%confidenceintervalsfromanMCMCsimulation.Ahigherpercentrightmeantthattheimmoralbehaviordescribedwaslessrepresentativeofthecondition.

Oppose

Support

Ex-con

Ideo

PercentCorrect

Sernyak 33

SimulationsofEx-convictCondition

PercentCorrect

Figure15:Densityofsimulationsofliberalsoverthetwoguncontrolconditions.Basicallyacrosssectionofthegraphinfigure14atis=-1.1000MCMCsimulationswererecordedandthengraphed.Themeanofthesupportconditionwas82%(95%CI=79%to86%).Themeanoftheopposeconditionwas75%(95%CI=70%to78%).

Figure16:Densityofsimulationsoftheex-convictconditionforbothliberalsandconservatives.Thereferenceconditionactuallydisplaysinterestingresults,asconservativesaremorelikelytocommittheconjunctionerrorintheex-convictcondition.Themeanofliberalswas43%(95%CI=39%to49%).Themeanofconservativeswas31%(CI95%=27%to35%).Inthishistogramandinfuturehistogramsliberalsareinblueandconservativesareinred.

SimulationsofLiberals

SupportOppose

PercentCorrect

8±3

12±3

LiberalConservative

Sernyak 34

Oppose

Suppose

Liberal

CRTincreasedpolarizationintwoofthethreeconditions(Seefigure17).Inthe

opposecondition.Intheopposeguncontrolcondition,CRTslightlyincreasedperformance,

buttherewasnosignificantpolarizationineitherloworhighCRTindividuals.Intheother

twoconditionspolarizationincreasedasCRTperformanceonlyimpactedliberals.Infact,

conservativesdidnotsignificantlyincreaseperformancewithCRTinanycondition.

Figure17:AlookattheeffectsofCRTperformanceineachconditiononbothliberalsandconservatives.Themostdramaticresultisfoundintheex-convictcondition.

Eachconditionwasobservedinmoredetail,toseeiftherewereinteractioneffects

betweenCRTperformanceandideology.Thequestionaskedwasasfollows:doliberals

improvemorefromlowCRT(CRT=-.5)tohighCRT(CRT=1)thanconservativesdo.Four

PercentCorrect

Ex-ConCRT

CRT

CRT

Conservative

Sernyak 35

OpposeCondition

EffectofCRTinOpposeCondition

ChangeinPercentCorrect

simulationsweredone1000timesineachcondition.OnesimulationwasdoneforlowCRT

liberals,oneforhighCRTliberals,oneforlowCRTconservatives,andoneforhighCRT

conservatives.Theimprovementamongtheideologicalgroupwastrackedandcompared.

Figure18:Simulationsoffourtypesofindividualsintheopposecondition:highandlowCRTliberalsandconservatives.CRTslightlyimprovesperformanceinbothideologies,andpolarizationdoesnotincrease.LowCRTindividualsarerepresentedbydottedlines,highCRTindividualsbysolidlines.

Figure19:ThehistogramdisplaystheimprovementofpercentcorrectasCRTgoesfromlowtohighinthesimulations.Inthiscondition,bothimproveslightlyonaverage,butthereisnointeractionbetweenideologyandCRT.Liberalsimproveby4%(95%CI=-4%to11%)andconservativesimproveby2%(95%CI=-6%to8%).

PercentCorrect

ConservativeHighCRT

ConservativeLowCRTLiberalLowCRT

LiberalHighCRT

LiberalConservative

Sernyak 36

SupportCondition

PercentCorrect

ChangeinPercentCorrect

EffectofCRTinSupportCondition9±5

PolarizationdidincreaseathigherCRTscoresinthesupportcondition(seefigure

20).LiberalsincreasedperformanceinthisconditionathighCRTscores,while

conservativesremainedconstant(seefigure20).Also,polarizationonlyoccursathigh

levelsofCRT.AtlowlevelsofCRTliberalsperformedequallytoconservatives.Athigh

levels,liberalswere9%(SE=4%)morelikelytogetthequestioncorrect.

Figure20:Simulationsoffourtypesofindividualsinthesupportcondition:highandlowCRTliberalsandconservatives.CRTimprovesperformanceinliberals,andpolarizationdoesincrease.

Figure21:ThehistogramsdisplaytheimprovementasoflowtohighCRTsimulations.Inthiscondition,onlyliberalsimprovewithhigherlevelsofCRT.Liberalsimproveby7%(95%CI=0%to13%)andconservativesgetworseby2%(95%CI=-10%to5%).

LiberalHighCRTLiberalLowCRT

ConservativeHighCRT

ConservativeLowCRT

LiberalConservative

Sernyak 37

PercentCorrect

Ex-conCondition

EffectofCRTinEx-conCondition

ChangeinPercentCorrect

Themostdramaticresultswereintheex-convictcondition.Polarizationincreased

athigherlevelsofCRT(seefigure22),ashighscoringliberalswere22%(SE=5%)less

likelytomaketheconjunctionfallacyerrorthanconservatives.Thedifferencebetweenlow

scoringCRTindividualswasonly7%(SE=4%).Increasedpolarizationoccurredasonly

liberalssawanincreaseinperformancewithhighCRTlevels(seefigure23).

Figure22:Simulationsoffourtypesofindividualsintheex-concondition:highandlowCRTliberalsandconservatives.CRTimprovesperformanceinliberals,andpolarizationdoesincrease.

Figure23:ThehistogramsdisplaytheimprovementasoflowtohighCRTsimulations.Inthiscondition,onlyliberalsimprovewithhigherlevelsofCRT.Liberalsimproveby16%(95%CI=6%to22%)andconservativesimproveby1%(95%CI=-7%to8%).

LiberalHighCRT

LiberalLowCRT

ConservativeLowCRT

ConservativeHighCRT

15±8

LiberalConservative

Sernyak 38

DISCUSSION

WASONSELECTIONTASK

PerformanceacrosstheboardintheWasonSelectionTaskwasverylow.Thetask

appearedtoohard,andevenunderconditionsthatnormallyproducebetterperformance,

fewwereabletodothetask.Therewasnodiscernableeffectofideology,anditseemslike

peoplewereguessingmorethansolvingtheproblem.TherewascorrelationwithCRT

performance,butevenathighlevelsofCRTsofewpeoplearegettingtheanswerrightitis

difficulttodrawanyconclusionsfromtheresults.AtalmostalllevelsofCRT,theexpected

percentcorrectintheregressionwaslessthan10%.OnlyatthehighestlevelsofCRTdidit

riseabovethatlevel.Andintermsofsimplygettingtheanswerright,theresultnever

reachedsignificantlyabovechance.

Theresultsmayhavebeendrivendownbythefactthatthequestionwastowards

theendofaverydifficulttest,andpeoplemaynothavegiventhatmucheffortonthe

problem.Manydidnoteventurnoveranyofthecardsandjustansweredatchance.Even

loweringthebarandlookingatlogicalprocesses,todeterminewhetherpeoplewereable

togetclosetotherightanswerwasnotcorrelateddiscernablytoideology.Ultimately,it

wasdifficulttotellwhetherornotthepromptactivatedmotivatedreasoning.

CONJUNCTIONFALLACY

Therewasaslightresultbetweenthetwopoliticizedconditions,butthereisclearly

notastrongrepresentationbetweenimmoralbehavioralandpolicypositionongun

control.Notonlywastherenotmuchdifferencebetweenthetwoconditions,butalsothe

rateoffallingfortheconjunctionfallacywassolowtheredoesnotseemtobearelevant

representation.Noanimosityseemstobecapturedbythisresult,althoughtheslight

Sernyak 39

differencedoespointtosomeeffectofideology.Thismaybebecauseliberalsand

conservativesdonothavestrongnegativerepresentationsofeachother,andareonly

slightlybiased.Whiletheremaybesomein-groupout-groupbias,thereisnotastrong

negativeportrayaloftheotherside.Theviciousnessmaybelefttothepoliticians.

Theotherpossibleexplanationisthattheconditionsweretoounrelatedtothe

prompt.Inthisscenariothereisstillasstronglinkbetweenimmoralbehaviorandopposite

ideology.Inthiscase,ideologywouldbeviewedasamoralcharacteristic.Thestudy

implementwasunabletounearththisrepresentationthough.Perhapsthelinkbetween

onepolicypositionandimmoralbehaviorwastootenuous.Amoresalientandrelevant

representationmaybeneeded.Ideologyisanall-encompassingmoralundertakingandthe

oneelementitselfisnotcloselyrelatedtoimmoralbehavior.Orperhapsguncontrolwas

notthebestfocus,asitmaybeconsideredacharacterflawbutnotlinkedtopettycrime.

Itisunclearastowhythebiaswasonlyfoundinliberals,asconservativesanswered

atsimilarratesinthetwoguncontrolconditions.Mostresultshaveeitherfoundequalor

greaterbiasinconservatives,soitisabitsurprisingtofindtheeffectonlyinliberals.This

maybebecauseliberalshaveastrongerassociationbetweenimmoralbehaviorandgun

control,astheyseethoseopposedtoitascomplicitinmassshootings.Incasessuchas

climatechangethismaynotbethecase.Liberalsalsomightbemorelikelytoview

conservativesasimmoralingeneral.Therealsomaysimplyhavebeenceilingeffectsasthe

rateofconjunctionfallacywassolowtobeginwith.Thistopicshouldbeexploredmore,

andpotentialwaystodosoarementionedinthefuturedirections.

Themostinterestingresultsareintheinteractioneffectsbetweenideologyand

intelligence.Unlikepreviousstudies,polarizationinresultsdoesnotoccurduetobiased

Sernyak 40

informationprocessing.Instead,theconjunctionfallacyisatestofnarrativerichness.CRT

normallyincreasesperformanceonthetest(Oechssler&Roider,2009),assubjectsareless

reliantonintuitivejudgmentsandaremorelikelytouselogic.Ifratesofconjunctionfallacy

increaseorstayconstant,thenmostlikelythelinkbetweentheconditionandimmoralityis

gettingstrongertoovercomethepropensitytouselogic.

Inthesupportsguncontrolcondition,CRTimprovedperformanceinliberals.Very

fewliberalssawasupporterofguncontrolasanimmoralperson,andevenfewer

intelligentliberalssawtheconnectionasrepresentative.Republicansthoughdidnot

increasewithCRT,suggestingthatthenarrativerichnessoftheaccountmayhave

increasedwhichoffsetnaturalimprovementsthatwouldbeexpectedinmorelogical

people.

Intheopposesguncontrolcondition,CRTimprovedperformancemodestlyinboth

liberalsandconservatives.Ifthatconditionhadfollowedthepatternsofthesupportand

referencecondition,onewouldexpectconservativestoimprovewithCRT,butnotliberals,

increasingpolarization.Thiswouldalsofollowpreviousresultsofideologicallymotivated

cognition,asliberalsandconservativeshaveshownsimilarbiasesinmoststudies.Yet

therearedistinctdifferencesbetweenideologicallymotivatedcognitionandthebias

associatedwiththeconjunctionfallacy.Itisunclearwhetherthereisafundamental

differenceinthenarrativeaccountsofconservativesandliberals,orwhetherthis

implementwastoosubtle.Ceilingeffectsmayalsohaveplayedaroleincapping

conservativeimprovementinthecondition.

Themostdramaticinteractionbetweenideologyandintelligencewasfoundinthe

referencecondition.PolarizationincreaseddramaticallywithincreaseinCRTscores,

Sernyak 41

suggestingthatthenarrativerichnessofconservativesincreased.Thiscouldhave

implicationsinbiasandprejudice.Smarterpeoplearebetteratapplyinglogictofita

worldview,andthiscouldallowthemtocreatemorenarrativelyrichaccountsofpeople.In

thisexampleconservativesmaybebiasedagainstex-cons,andviewthemasimmoral,

slightlymorethanliberalsdo.Thiswouldfitpreviousfindingsasconservativesaremore

reliantonsocialinstitutionsandsocietalorder(Jostetal.,2003).AsCRTincreases,liberals

aremorelikelytolookpasttheirlessnarrativelyrichaccount,andcometothecorrect

conclusionthatRichardismorelikelytonotbeanex-convict.Smartconservativesthough,

havecreatedamorerobuststoryinwhichex-convictsareimmoral,andthereforetheir

performancedoesnotincreasedespitetheirnaturalinclinationtouselogic.Inthefuture

thistopicandtheoryshouldbeinvestigated.

FUTURESTUDY

Hereisaproposedtesttobegiventoademographicallysimilargroupofparticipants:

OriginalCRT:

1. Abatandaballcost$1.10intotal.Thebatcosts$1.00morethantheball.Howmuchdoestheballcost?[correctanswer=5cents;heuristicanswer=10

cents]

2. Ifittakes5minutesforfivemachinestomakefivewidgets,howlongwouldittakefor100machinestomake100widgets?[correctanswer=5minutes;

heuristicanswer=100minutes]

3. Inalake,thereisapatchoflilypads.Everyday,thepatchdoublesinsize.Ifittakes48daysforthepatchtocovertheentirelake,howlongwouldittakefor

thepatchtocoverhalfofthelake?[correctanswer=47days;heuristic

answer=24days]

NewCRTQuestions:

1. Thereathreefulldecksofcardsonatableandadealerisdrawingcards.FromDeck1hedrawsthreeblackcards.FromDeck2hedraws2blacksand1redcard.From

Deck3hedrawsthreeredcards.Youwanttopickablackcard.Whichdeckshould

youdrawfrom?[correctanswer=3;heuristicanswer=1]

2. WhenIwas6mysisterwashalfmyage.Iamnow50,howoldisshe?[correctanswer=47;heuristicanswer=25]

3. Youaretoldtodesignnewarmorforthemilitary,andyouneedtodecidewheretoputbulletproofmaterial.Peoplemostlygetshotinthearmsorthehead.Doctors

noticethatmostinjuredpeoplecomingbackfromthewarhavewoundsintheir

Sernyak 42

arms.Whereshouldarmorbereinforced?[correctanswer=head;heuristicanswer

=arms]

ConjunctionFallacyQuestion1:

“Richardis31yearsold.Onhiswaytoworkoneday,heaccidentallybackedhiscar

intoaparkedvan.Becausepedestrianswerewatching,he got out of his car. He

pretended towrite down his insuranceinformation.He then tucked theblank

note into thevan’swindowbeforegettingbackintohiscaranddrivingaway.”

Whichismorelikely?

a) Richardisself-empolyedb) Richardisself-employedand(1ofthreeconditions)

Thethreeconditionswouldbe“ex-convict”,“ex-convictwhowasarrestedforcorporate

fraud”,and“ex-convictwhowasarrestedfordrugdealing”

WasonSelectionTask:

Thepromptwouldasksubjectstoevaluatetheclaimthatafewpoliticianshadsent

outtweetsrecentlyandnoneoftheonessentoutby_______hadbeenfactual.Thethree

politicianswouldbePaulRyan,BarrackObama,andDavidCameronasareference

condition.IntheTrumpcondition,thecardswouldreadObama,fact,Ryan,lies.Thecorrect

cardstoturnoverwouldbefactandRyan,andtheassertionwouldturnouttobefalse.

ConjunctionFallacyQuestion#2:

“Sarahwaswalkingdownthestreetwhenamaninfrontofherdroppedhiswallet.Shewas

abouttocalltohimwhenshesawthatthewallethad$200init.Shekeptthemoney,and

threwthewalletinthetrash.”

Whichismorelikely?

c) Sarahisaclerkd) Sarahisaclerkand(1ofthreeconditions)

Thethreeconditionswouldbe“atheist”,“liberal”,and“conservative”

Base-rateNeglect:

“Ofthe_________population,1in10,000areterrorists.TheFBIhasawatchlisttosurvey

suspectedterrorist.Ifapersonisaterroristthereisa99%chancetheywillbeonthelist.If

thepersonisnotaterroristthereisa99%chancetheywillnotbeonthelist.

Apersonrealizestheirneighborisonthelist,howlikelyaretheytobeaterrorist?”

Pickone:

(0-10%,10-20%,20-30%,30-40%,40-50%,50-60%,60-70%,70-80%,80-90%,90-100%)

Sernyak 43

Thethreeconditionswouldbedifferentpopulations:alt-right,Muslim,andgeneral.

Thecorrectansweris0-10%buttheheuristicansweris90-100%.

Thefuturestudyproposedwillbeinasimilarformatandwillseektoclarifymany

ofthequestionsthatcameupinthisstudy,andtofurtherexaminemotivatedreasoning

andpoliticalbias.AgainthesurveywillbestartedwiththeoriginalCRT.Wearealso

proposingourownquestionsthathavethepotentialtobeaddedtotheCRT.Findingmore

questionsthatcorrelatewiththeoriginaltest,andthatcanbeusedtoaddorreplacethe

testwillbeimportantforfutureresearch,sowewanttotryafewnewonesinthestudy.

ThesequestionsmostlikelyeasierthantheonesonthecurrentCRT,butthehopeisthat

theycorrelatewithincreasedCRTperformance,butprovidetraitdiscriminationatlower

levels.

Nextwewishedtoinvestigateprejudiceandworldvieweffects.Buildingoffofthe

resultsintheex-convictcondition,wehopetolookatrulebreaking,andtheeffectsof

worldview.Theimplementwouldbesimilartotheconjunctionfallacyquestioninthe

study,butallthreeconditionsallaboutrulebreaking.Thefirstreferenceconditionwould

be“ex-convict”,thesecondconditionwouldbe“ex-convictwhowasarrestedforcorporate

fraud”,andthethirdconditionwouldbe“ex-convictwhowasarrestedfordrugdealing”.

Thisresultwouldmostlikelybepolarized,asliberalsaremorecommunitarianandare

waryofcorporategreed,whileconservativesaregenerallymoreanti-drugs.The

hypothesiswouldbethatthispolarizationwouldincreasewithCRTaswell.Thisquestion

wouldcontinuetoinvestigatethenarrativerichnessofintelligentpartisans.

ThenextquestiononthetestwouldbeathreeconditionWasonSelectionTaskas

usedinthesurvey,butwithsimplerconditionsfocusedonCheaterDetection.The

Sernyak 44

hypothesiswouldbethatsubjectswouldundergomotivatedreasoningtohelptheir

candidate,andpolarizationwouldincreasewithCRT.Theeffectmaybeweakerthoughas

inthisinstancetheyareprotectingacandidatetheymayagreewithratherthanprotecting

anopiniontheyfeelisnecessarytotheirgroupidentity.Cheaterdetectioncouldprovide

someinterestingresultsinthissituation,andcouldcontinuetodemonstratethe

relationshipbetweenconfirmationbiasandthetask.Whenapartisanhearsthatthe

opposingcandidatelies,theymaybelikelytoacceptthatresultandwillnotsearchfarther.

Thissimplerversionisproposedtoseeifthetaskisevenaviabletoolforbiased

informationprocessing.Thiswouldbeahelpfuldiscoveryasthetaskhasbeenusedinthe

pasttoexaminebiasinthepopulationandinjudges,sotheusefulnessofthetestshouldbe

examined.

Therewouldthenbeanotherconjunctionfallacyquestion,againaboutimmoral

behavior,andthistimetryingtodeterminewhetherpeopleviewothersofdiffering

ideologyasimmoral.ThedescriptionwouldbeofanimmoralSara,andsubjectswould

thenbeaskedifshewasmorelikelytobeasalesclerk,orasalesclerkandoneofthree

conditions:aliberal,aconservative,oranatheist.Astheindirectmethoddidnotworktoo

wellinproducingrichrepresentationswethoughtwewouldtrybeingmoredirectinthe

implement.TheeffectofCRTandofintelligencewouldbecomeclearerifthemoredirect

promptismorerepresentative.Thisisnotnecessarilythecase,butwouldbeinterestingto

check.

Finally,wewantedtotestlogicalprocessesinanothercontext,sowecreatedabase

rateneglect(Bar-Hillel,1980)problemtotestmotivatedreasoning.Peopleoftenneglect

thebase-rateofthepopulationandreportahighprobabilityoftheeventoccurring,inthis

Sernyak 45

casethatthepersonisaterrorist.Thegoalwouldbetoseeiflookingatdifferentgroups

wouldalterpeople’sabilitytoreasonproperly,andcontinuetolookatmotivatedreasoning

injudgmentsofothers.Thepredictionwouldbethatconservativeswouldbemorelikelyto

ignorethebase-rateintheMuslimcondition,asthatwouldfitwiththeirworld-view.

Liberalswouldbemorelikelytoignorethebase-rateinalt-rightconditions,asthatresult

wouldfitwiththeirworld-view.

Thestudyaimstoexploreotherareaswheremotivatedreasoningmaybeafactor

besidesinformationprocessing.Itislogicaltoassumeitwouldberelevantincheater

detection,asthisinvolveslogic,butthesenewinstrumentswouldalsocontinuetoexplore

whethermotivatedreasoningisrelevantinhowotherpoliticalgroupsareviewed.The

questionremainswhethertheAmericancitizenviewsotherpoliticalviewsas

fundamentallylessmoral,andismoreexpectantofbadbehavior.Itwillalsobeinteresting

toseetheroleofintelligenceinavarietyofcontextsoutsideoflogicalprocesses.

Intelligencemayholisticallyincreasepolarizationbyallowingpeopletobemoreconfident

intheiropinions.

Sernyak 46

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

IamverygratefulformyadvisorDanKahan,andforhisguidanceandmentorship

throughouttheprocess.Professorwasincrediblyreceptive,helpful,andIfeelasthoughI

havelearnedsomuchfromhimthroughouttheentireprocess.Iamalsogratefulforthe

supportoftheCognitiveScienceDepartment,especiallyMarkSheskin.Iwouldliketothank

myclassmatesandprofessorsovertheyears,withoutwhomthiswouldnotbepossible.

Andofcourse,asalways,myfamilyandfriends.

Sernyak 47

REFERENCES

“AWiderIdeologicalGapBetweenMoreandLessEducatedAdults”PewResearchCenter.

26April2017.Online.

Adorno,T.W.,Frenkel-Brunswik,E.,Levinson,D.J.,&Sanford,R.N.(1950).The

authoritarianpersonality.

Bar-Hillel,M.(1980).Thebase-ratefallacyinprobabilityjudgments.ActaPsychologica,44(3),211-233.

Baron,J.,Scott,S.,Fincher,K.,&Metz,S.E.(2015).Whydoesthecognitivereflectiontest

(sometimes)predictutilitarianmoraljudgment(andotherthings)?.JournalofAppliedResearchinMemoryandCognition,4(3),265-284.

Brandt,M.J.,Reyna,C.,Chambers,J.R.,Crawford,J.T.,&Wetherell,G.(2014).The

ideological-conflicthypothesisintoleranceamongbothliberalsand

conservatives.CurrentDirectionsinPsychologicalScience,23(1),27-34.

Campitelli,G.,&Gerrans,P.(2014).Doesthecognitivereflectiontestmeasurecognitive

reflection?Amathematicalmodelingapproach.Memory&Cognition,42(3),434-447.

Campitelli,G.,&Labollita,M.(2010).Correlationsofcognitivereflectionwithjudgments

andchoices.JudgmentandDecisionMaking,5(3),182.

Chaiken,S.,&Trope,Y.(Eds.).(1999).Dual-processtheoriesinsocialpsychology.Guilford.

Chambers,J.R.,Schlenker,B.R.,&Collisson,B.(2013).Ideologyandprejudice:Theroleof

valueconflicts.Psychologicalscience,24(2),140-149.

Chen,S.,Duckworth,K.,&Chaiken,S.(1999).Motivatedheuristicandsystematic

processing.PsychologicalInquiry,10(1),44-49.

Cohen,G.L.(2003).Partyoverpolicy:Thedominatingimpactofgroupinfluenceon

politicalbeliefs.Journalofpersonalityandsocialpsychology,85(5),808.

Cokely,E.T.,Galesic,M.,Schulz,E.,Ghazal,S.,&Garcia-Retamero,R.(2012).Measuringrisk

literacy:TheBerlinnumeracytest.JudgmentandDecisionMaking,7(1),25.

“CongressandthePublic.”Gallup.5March2017.Online.

Conover,P.J.(1984).Theinfluenceofgroupidentificationsonpoliticalperceptionand

evaluation.TheJournalofPolitics,46(3),760-785.

Sernyak 48

Cosmides,L.,&Tooby,J.(1992).Cognitiveadaptationsforsocialexchange.Theadapted

mind,163-228.

Dawson,E.,Gilovich,T.,&Regan,D.T.(2002).MotivatedReasoningandPerformanceon

thewasonSelectionTask.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,28(10),1379-1387.

DeNeys,W.,Rossi,S.,&Houdé,O.(2013).Bats,balls,andsubstitutionsensitivity:Cognitive

misersarenohappyfools.PsychonomicBulletin&Review,20(2),269-273.

Deppe,K.D.,Gonzalez,F.J.,Neiman,J.L.,Jacobs,C.,Pahlke,J.,Smith,K.B.,&Hibbing,J.R.

(2015).Reflectiveliberalsandintuitiveconservatives:AlookattheCognitive

ReflectionTestandideology.JudgmentandDecisionMaking,10(4),314.

Druckman,J.N.(2003).Thepoweroftelevisionimages:ThefirstKennedy-Nixondebate

revisited.TheJournalofPolitics,65(2),559-571.

Duarte,J.L.,Crawford,J.T.,Stern,C.,Haidt,J.,Jussim,L.,&Tetlock,P.E.(2015).Political

diversitywillimprovesocialpsychologicalscience.BehavioralandBrainSciences,38,e130.

Dunning,D.,Meyerowitz,J.A.,&Holzberg,A.D.(1989).Ambiguityandself-evaluation:The

roleofidiosyncratictraitdefinitionsinself-servingassessmentsofability.Journalofpersonalityandsocialpsychology,57(6),1082.

Evans,J.S.B.(2003).Intwominds:dual-processaccountsofreasoning.Trendsincognitivesciences,7(10),454-459.

Enten,Harry.“America’sDistasteforBothTrumpandClintonisRecordBreaking.”538.5

May2016.Online.

Eskine,K.J.,Kacinik,N.A.,&Prinz,J.J.(2011).Abadtasteinthemouthgustatorydisgust

influencesmoraljudgment.PsychologicalScience,22(3),295-299.

Fantino,E.,Kulik,J.,Stolarz-Fantino,S.,&Wright,W.(1997).Theconjunctionfallacy:Atest

ofaveraginghypotheses.PsychonomicBulletin&Review,4(1),96-101.

Fernbach,P.M.,Sloman,S.A.,Louis,R.S.,&Shube,J.N.(2013).Explanationfiendsandfoes:

Howmechanisticdetaildeterminesunderstandingandpreference.JournalofConsumerResearch,39(5),1115-1131.

Festinger,L.(1956).WhenProphecyFails:ASocialandPsychologicalStudyofaModernGroupthatPredictedtheDestinationoftheWorld.Harper.

Sernyak 49

Festinger,L.(1962).Atheoryofcognitivedissonance(Vol.2).Stanforduniversitypress.

Fiedler,K.(1988).Thedependenceoftheconjunctionfallacyonsubtlelinguistic

factors.Psychologicalresearch,50(2),123-129.

Fiske,S.T.,&Taylor,S.E.(1991).Socialcognition,2nd.NY:McGraw-Hill,16-15.

Frederick,S.(2005).Cognitivereflectionanddecisionmaking.TheJournalofEconomicPerspectives,19(4),25-42.

Gastil,J.,Braman,D.,Kahan,D.M.,&Slovic,P.(2005).The'WildavskyHeuristic':The

CulturalOrientationofMassPoliticalOpinion.

Gervais,W.M.(2014).Everythingispermitted?Peopleintuitivelyjudgeimmoralityas

representativeofatheists.PloSone,9(4),e92302.

Giddings,L.,&Dunn,T.J.(2016).TheRobustnessofAnti-AtheistPrejudiceasMeasuredby

WayofCognitiveErrors.TheInternationalJournalforthePsychologyofReligion,26(2),124-135.

Giner-Sorolla,R.,&Chapman,H.A.(2016).BeyondPurityMoralDisgustTowardBad

Character.PsychologicalScience,0956797616673193.

Green,D.,Palmquist,B.,&Schickler,E.(2002).Partisanheartsandminds.

Greenhoot,A.F.,Semb,G.,Colombo,J.,&Schreiber,T.(2004).Priorbeliefsand

methodologicalconceptsinscientificreasoning.AppliedCognitivePsychology,18(2),203-221.

Griggs,R.A.,&Cox,J.R.(1982).Theelusivethematic-materialseffectinWason'sselection

task.BritishJournalofPsychology,73(3),407-420.

Haidt,J.(2001).Theemotionaldoganditsrationaltail:asocialintuitionistapproachto

moraljudgment.Psychologicalreview,108(4),814.

Hart,P.S.,&Nisbet,E.C.(2012).Boomerangeffectsinsciencecommunication:How

motivatedreasoningandidentitycuesamplifyopinionpolarizationaboutclimate

mitigationpolicies.CommunicationResearch,39(6),701-723.

Hastorf,A.H.,&Cantril,H.(1954).Theysawagame;acasestudy.TheJournalofAbnormalandSocialPsychology,49(1),129.

Hertwig,R.,&Gigerenzer,G.(1999).The'conjunctionfallacy'revisited:Howintelligent

inferenceslooklikereasoningerrors.Journalofbehavioraldecisionmaking,12(4),275.

Sernyak 50

Hodson,G.,&Busseri,M.A.(2012).Brightmindsanddarkattitudeslowercognitiveability

predictsgreaterprejudicethroughright-wingideologyandlowintergroup

contact.PsychologicalScience,23(2),187-195.

Hoorens,V.(1993).Self-enhancementandsuperioritybiasesinsocial

comparison.Europeanreviewofsocialpsychology,4(1),113-139.

Huang,J.Y.,Sedlovskaya,A.,Ackerman,J.M.,&Bargh,J.A.(2011).Immunizingagainst

prejudice:Effectsofdiseaseprotectiononattitudestowardout-

groups.PsychologicalScience,22(12),1550-1556.

Imai,Kosuke,GaryKing,andOliviaLau.(2008).“TowardACommonFrameworkfor

StatisticalAnalysisandDevelopment.”JournalofComputationalandGraphical

Statistics,Vol.17,No.4(December),pp.892-913.

Inbar,Y.,Pizarro,D.,Iyer,R.,&Haidt,J.(2012).Disgustsensitivity,politicalconservatism,

andvoting.SocialPsychologicalandPersonalityScience,3(5),537-544.

Jost,J.T.,Glaser,J.,Kruglanski,A.W.,&Sulloway,F.J.(2003).Politicalconservatismas

motivatedsocialcognition.

Judd,CharlesM.(2000).EverydayDataAnalysisinSocialPsychologyComparisonsof

LinearModels.Handbookofresearchmethodsinsocialandpersonalitypsychology,370.

Kahan,D.(2010).Fixingthecommunicationsfailure.Nature,463(7279),296-297.

Kahan,D.M.(2012)."Ideology,motivatedreasoning,andcognitivereflection:An

experimentalstudy."

Kahan,D.M.(2015).Theexpressiverationalityofinaccurateperceptions.

Kahan,D.M.(2015).Thepoliticallymotivatedreasoningparadigm.BrowserDownloadThisPaper.

Kahan,D.M.,&Corbin,J.C.(2016).Anoteontheperverseeffectsofactivelyopen-minded

thinkingonclimate-changepolarization.Research&Politics,3(4),2053168016676705.

Kahan,D.M.,&Stanovich,K.E.(2016).RationalityandBeliefinHumanEvolution.

Kahan,D.M.,Braman,D.,Monahan,J.,Callahan,L.,&Peters,E.(2010).Culturalcognition

andpublicpolicy:Thecaseofoutpatientcommitmentlaws.LawandHumanBehavior,34(2),118-140.

Sernyak 51

Kahan,D.M.,Braman,D.,Slovic,P.,Gastil,J.,&Cohen,G.L.(2007).Thesecondnationalrisk

andculturestudy:Makingsenseof-andmakingprogressin-theamericanculture

waroffact.

Kahan,D.M.,Landrum,A.R.,Carpenter,K.,Helft,L.,&Jamieson,K.H.(2016).Science

curiosityandpoliticalinformationprocessing.

Kahan,D.M.,Peters,E.,Dawson,E.C.,&Slovic,P.(2013).Motivatednumeracyand

enlightenedself-government.

Kahan,D.M.,Peters,E.,Wittlin,M.,Slovic,P.,Ouellette,L.L.,Braman,D.,&Mandel,G.

(2012).Thepolarizingimpactofscienceliteracyandnumeracyonperceivedclimate

changerisks.Natureclimatechange,2(10),732-735.

Kahan,DanM.,andDonaldBraman."Culturalcognitionandpublicpolicy."YaleLaw&PolicyReview24.1(2006):149-172.

Kahneman,D.(2011).Thinking,fastandslow.Macmillan.

Kahneman,D.,&Frederick,S.(2002).Representativenessrevisited:Attributesubstitution

inintuitivejudgment.Heuristicsandbiases:Thepsychologyofintuitivejudgment,49.

King,G.,Tomz,M.,&Wittenberg,J.(2000).Makingthemostofstatisticalanalyses:

Improvinginterpretationandpresentation.Americanjournalofpoliticalscience,347-361.

Klaczynski,P.A.,&Gordon,D.H.(1996).Self-servinginfluencesonadolescents’evaluations

ofbelief-relevantevidence.JournalofExperimentalChildPsychology,62(3),317-339.

Klaczynski,P.A.andRobinson,B.2000.Personaltheories,intellectualability,and

epistemologicalbeliefs:Adultagedifferencesineverydayreasoning

tasks.PsychologyandAging,15:400–416.

Knowlton,B.J.,Ramus,S.J.,&Squire,L.R.(1992).Intactartificialgrammarlearningin

amnesia:Dissociationofclassificationlearningandexplicitmemoryforspecific

instances.PsychologicalScience,3(3),172-179.

KosukeImai,GaryKing,andOliviaLau.2007.“Zelig:Everyone’sStatisticalSoftware,”

http://GKing.harvard.edu/zelig.

Kunda,Z.(1990).Thecaseformotivatedreasoning.Psychologicalbulletin,108(3),480.

Lewandowsky,S.,&Oberauer,K.(2016).Motivatedrejectionofscience.CurrentDirectionsinPsychologicalScience,25(4),217-222.

Lewis,M.(2004).Moneyball:Theartofwinninganunfairgame.WWNorton&Company.

Sernyak 52

Liberali,J.M.,Reyna,V.F.,Furlan,S.,Stein,L.M.,&Pardo,S.T.(2012).Individual

differencesinnumeracyandcognitivereflection,withimplicationsforbiasesand

fallaciesinprobabilityjudgment.Journalofbehavioraldecisionmaking,25(4),361-381.

Lord,C.G.,Ross,L.,&Lepper,M.R.(1979).Biasedassimilationandattitudepolarization:

Theeffectsofpriortheoriesonsubsequentlyconsideredevidence.Journalofpersonalityandsocialpsychology,37(11),2098.

MacCoun,R.J.(2013).Moraloutrageandoppositiontoharmreduction.CriminalLawandPhilosophy,7(1),83-98.

Manktelow,K.I.(2012).Thinkingandreasoning:Anintroductiontothepsychologyofreason,judgmentanddecisionmaking(Vol.360).PsychologyPress.

Manktelow,K.I.,&Over,D.E.(1990).Deonticthoughtandtheselectiontask.Linesofthinking,1,153-164.

Munro,G.D.,Ditto,P.H.,Lockhart,L.K.,Fagerlin,A.,Gready,M.,&Peterson,E.(2002).

Biasedassimilationofsociopoliticalarguments:Evaluatingthe1996USpresidential

debate.BasicandAppliedSocialPsychology,24(1),15-26.

Morgan,G.S.,Mullen,E.,&Skitka,L.J.(2010).Whenvaluesandattributionscollide:

Liberals’andconservatives’valuesmotivateattributionsforalleged

misdeeds.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,36(9),1241-1254.

Morsanyi,K.,Busdraghi,C.,&Primi,C.(2014).Mathematicalanxietyislinkedtoreduced

cognitivereflection:apotentialroadfromdiscomfortinthemathematicsclassroom

tosusceptibilitytobiases.BehavioralandBrainFunctions,10(1),31.

Nickerson,R.S.(1998).Confirmationbias:Aubiquitousphenomenoninmany

guises.Reviewofgeneralpsychology,2(2),175.

Nisbet,ErikC.,KathrynE.Cooper,andR.KellyGarrett."Thepartisanbrain:Howdissonant

sciencemessagesleadconservativesandliberalsto(dis)trustscience."TheANNALSoftheAmericanAcademyofPoliticalandSocialScience658.1(2015):36-66.

Nyhan,B.,&Reifler,J.(2010).Whencorrectionsfail:Thepersistenceofpolitical

misperceptions.PoliticalBehavior,32(2),303-330.

Oechssler,J.,Roider,A.,&Schmitz,P.W.(2009).Cognitiveabilitiesandbehavioral

biases.JournalofEconomicBehavior&Organization,72(1),147-152.

Paxton,J.M.,Ungar,L.,&Greene,J.D.(2012).Reflectionandreasoninginmoral

judgment.CognitiveScience,36(1),163-177.

Sernyak 53

Pennycook,G.,Cheyne,J.A.,Barr,N.,Koehler,D.J.,&Fugelsang,J.A.(2014).Theroleof

analyticthinkinginmoraljudgementsandvalues.Thinking&Reasoning,20(2),188-214.

Pennycook,G.,Cheyne,J.A.,Seli,P.,Koehler,D.J.,&Fugelsang,J.A.(2012).Analytic

cognitivestylepredictsreligiousandparanormalbelief.Cognition,123(3),335-346.

Perkins,D.N.(1985).Postprimaryeducationhaslittleimpactoninformal

reasoning.JournalofEducationalPsychology,77(5),562.

Perkins,D.N.,Farady,M.,&Bushey,B.(1991).Everydayreasoningandtherootsofintelligence.LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Inc.

“PoliticsofClimate”PewResearchCenter.4October2016.Online.

Powell,J.L.(2015).ClimateScientistsVirtuallyUnanimous:AnthropogenicGlobal

WarmingIsTrue.BulletinofScience,Technology&Society,35(5-6),121-124.

Primi,C.,Morsanyi,K.,Chiesi,F.,Donati,M.A.,&Hamilton,J.(2015).Thedevelopmentand

testingofanewversionofthecognitivereflectiontestapplyingitemresponse

theory(IRT).JournalofBehavioralDecisionMaking.

Proulx,T.,Inzlicht,M.,&Harmon-Jones,E.(2012).Understandingallinconsistency

compensationasapalliativeresponsetoviolatedexpectations.Trendsincognitivesciences,16(5),285-291.

Reilly,D.(2012).Gender,culture,andsex-typedcognitiveabilities.PloSone,7(7),e39904.

Rutjens,B.T.,&Heine,S.J.(2016).Theimmorallandscape?Scientistsareassociatedwith

violationsofmorality.PloSone,11(4),e0152798.

Schwartz,John."ScienceTeacher’sGraspofClimateChangeisFoundLacking."NewYork

Times[NewYork]11February2016.Online.

Scoville,W.B.,&Milner,B.(1957).Lossofrecentmemoryafterbilateralhippocampal

lesions.JournalofNeurology,Neurosurgery&Psychiatry,20(1),11-21.

Sharot,T.(2011).Theoptimismbias.Currentbiology,21(23),R941-R945.

Sibley,C.G.,&Duckitt,J.(2008).Personalityandprejudice:Ameta-analysisandtheoretical

review.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyReview,12(3),248-279.

Silver,Nate.“Education,notIncome,PredictedWhoWouldVoteforTrump.”538.22

November2016.Online.

Sernyak 54

Skitka,L.J.,Bauman,C.W.,&Sargis,E.G.(2005).Moralconviction:Anothercontributorto

attitudestrengthorsomethingmore?.Journalofpersonalityandsocialpsychology,88(6),895.

Skitka,L.J.,Mullen,E.,Griffin,T.,Hutchinson,S.,&Chamberlin,B.(2002).Dispositions,

scripts,ormotivatedcorrection?:Understandingideologicaldifferencesin

explanationsforsocialproblems.Journalofpersonalityandsocialpsychology,83(2),470.

Sloman,S.A.(2002).Twosystemsofreasoning.

Smith,E.R.,&DeCoster,J.(2000).Dual-processmodelsinsocialandcognitivepsychology:

Conceptualintegrationandlinkstounderlyingmemorysystems.Personalityandsocialpsychologyreview,4(2),108-131.

Spranca,M.,Minsk,E.,&Baron,J.(1991).Omissionandcommissioninjudgmentand

choice.Journalofexperimentalsocialpsychology,27(1),76-105.

Stanovich,K.E.(1999).Whoisrational?:Studiesofindividualdifferencesinreasoning.PsychologyPress.

Stanovich,K.E.(2004).Metarepresentationandthegreatcognitivedivide:Acommentary

onHenriques'“PsychologyDefined”.Journalofclinicalpsychology,60(12),1263-1266.

Stanovich,K.E.(2013).Whyhumansare(sometimes)lessrationalthanotheranimals:

Cognitivecomplexityandtheaxiomsofrationalchoice.Thinking&Reasoning,19(1),1-26.

Stanovich,K.E.,&Toplak,M.E.(2012).Definingfeaturesversusincidentalcorrelatesof

Type1andType2processing.Mind&Society,11(1),3-13.

Stanovich,K.E.,&West,R.F.(2007).Naturalmysidebiasisindependentofcognitive

ability.Thinking&Reasoning,13(3),225-247.

Tajfel,H.,&Turner,J.C.(1979).Anintegrativetheoryofintergroupconflict.Thesocialpsychologyofintergrouprelations,33(47),74.

Tajfel,H.,Billig,M.G.,Bundy,R.P.,&Flament,C.(1971).Socialcategorizationand

intergroupbehaviour.Europeanjournalofsocialpsychology,1(2),149-178.

Tetlock,P.E.(1983).Cognitivestyleandpoliticalideology.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,45(1),118.

Sernyak 55

Terrizzi,J.A.,Shook,N.J.,&Ventis,W.L.(2010).Disgust:Apredictorofsocialconservatism

andprejudicialattitudestowardhomosexuals.PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,49(6),587-592.

TheEditorialBoard.“TeachingtheTruthAboutClimateChange.”NewYorkTimes[New

York]10October2015.Online.

Todorov,A.,Mandisodza,A.N.,Goren,A.,&Hall,C.C.(2005).Inferencesofcompetence

fromfacespredictelectionoutcomes.Science,308(5728),1623-1626.

“TopVotingIssuesinthe2016Election.”PewResearchCenter.7July2016.Online.

Toplak,M.E.,&Stanovich,K.E.(2003).Associationsbetweenmysidebiasonaninformal

reasoningtaskandamountofpost-secondaryeducation.AppliedCognitivePsychology,17(7),851-860.

Toplak,M.E.,West,R.F.,&Stanovich,K.E.(2011).TheCognitiveReflectionTestasa

predictorofperformanceonheuristics-and-biasestasks.Memory&Cognition,39(7),1275.

Toplak,M.E.,West,R.F.,&Stanovich,K.E.(2014).Assessingmiserlyinformation

processing:AnexpansionoftheCognitiveReflectionTest.Thinking&Reasoning,20(2),147-168.

Thüring,M.,&Jungermann,H.(1990).Theconjunctionfallacy:Causalityvs.event

probability.JournalofBehavioralDecisionMaking,3(1),61-74.

Tversky,A.,&Kahneman,D.(1983).Extensionalversusintuitivereasoning:The

conjunctionfallacyinprobabilityjudgment.Psychologicalreview,90(4),293.

Washington,G.(1796).Farewelladdress.May,15,1796.

Wason,P.C.(1966).Reasoning.

Wasserman,E.A.,Dorner,W.W.,&Kao,S.F.(1990).Contributionsofspecificcell

informationtojudgmentsofintereventcontingency.JournalofExperimentalPsychology:Learning,Memory,andCognition,16(3),509.

Weller,J.A.,Dieckmann,N.F.,Tusler,M.,Mertz,C.K.,Burns,W.J.,&Peters,E.(2013).

Developmentandtestingofanabbreviatednumeracyscale:ARaschanalysis

approach.JournalofBehavioralDecisionMaking,26(2),198-212.

West,R.F.,Meserve,R.J.,&Stanovich,K.E.(2012).Cognitivesophisticationdoesnot

attenuatethebiasblindspot.Journalofpersonalityandsocialpsychology,103(3),506.

Sernyak 56

Westen,D.,Blagov,P.S.,Harenski,K.,Kilts,C.,&Hamann,S.(2006).Neuralbasesof

motivatedreasoning:AnfMRIstudyofemotionalconstraintsonpartisanpolitical

judgmentinthe2004USpresidentialelection.Journalofcognitiveneuroscience,18(11),1947-1958.

Westfall,J.,VanBoven,L.,Chambers,J.R.,&Judd,C.M.(2015).Perceivingpolitical

polarizationintheUnitedStates:Partyidentitystrengthandattitudeextremity

exacerbatetheperceivedpartisandivide.PerspectivesonPsychologicalScience,10(2),145-158.

Wildavsky,A.(1987).Choosingpreferencesbyconstructinginstitutions:Aculturaltheory

ofpreferenceformation.AmericanPoliticalScienceReview,81(01),3-21.

Allcitationsfromgooglescholar

Sernyak 57

APPENDIX

APPENDIXA

SYSTEM1VSSYSTEM2

Peoplethinkindifferentwaysdependingonthesituation.Recentliteraturehas

soughttocharacterizethinkingintoafundamentaldichotomybetweenfastautomatic

processesandslowermoredeliberatemodes.Theyfirsttypeofthinkingisknownas

System1thought,andthesecondisSystem2.

Thefirstsystemreliesonheuristics,whicharequickwaystoformjudgments,easily

retrievableknowledgestructuresthatcanbecalledtomindquickly.Thissystemis

relativelyeffortless(Sloman,2002,Kahneman&Frederick2002).Thissystemisslowly

andgenerallytrainedovertime,bycreatingunconsciousgeneralrepresentationsthrough

association(Smith&DeCoster,2000,Chaikan&Trope,1999).Thesegeneralknowledge

structurescreateanautonomoussetofsystemsthatareusedformostofdaytoday

thinking.Theautonomousandeffortlessnatureisthedefiningfeatureofthesesystems

(Stanovich,2004,Kahneman,2011).

Thesecondsystemisslowerandmoreeffortful,andisusedlessoftenforthis

reason.Itisoftencalledinwhensomethingviolatesexpectation,ormorereflectionis

necessaryoncertaintask.Whilethishelpskeepcontrolinunknownsituations,ittakes

effort(Kahneman,2011).System2processesusespecificrules,andlogic,thatcanthenbe

appliedtosituations.Italsoiswhatallowsforcomplexprocessessuchcognitive

decoupling,ortheabilitytosustainsecondaryrepresentations,andthereforesimulation

(Stanovich,2004).Italsoheavilyrelatedtoconsciousnessandtheunderstandingofself

(Kahneman,2011).System2isassociatedwithwhatisgenerallyconsideredhuman

cognition,asopposedtoSystem1,whichsharesmorecognitivefeatureswithother

animals(Evans,2003).

Type1Processes Type2ProcessesHolistic Analytic

Automatic Controlled

Relativelyundemandingofcognitive

capacity

Capacitydemanding

Relativelyfast Relativelyslow

Acquisitionbybiology,exposure,and

personalexperience

Acquisitionbycultureandformaltuition

Parallel Sequential

Evolutionarilyold Evolutionarilyrecent

Implicit Explicit

Oftenunconsciousorpreconscious Oftenconscious

Lowercorrelationswithintelligence Highercorrelationswithintelligence

Short-leashedgeneticgoals Long-leashedgoalsthattendtoward

personalutilitymaximization

Figure24:AchartinitiallyfromStanovich1999outliningvariousSystem1andSystem2processes.

Sernyak 58

Thetwosystemsworktogetherinawaythatmaximizescognitiveefficiency.Dueto

thehigheffortassociatedwiththinking,peoplearecognitivemisers(Taylor,1991),and

willavoidusingeffortfulprocessesifpossible.System1isoftennotoptimalthough,as

heuristicsaregeneralrulesthatcanbemisappliedandleadtobias.Duetoenergy

constraintspeoplewilloftenusethelesseffortful,butlessexactsystem.Thismakessense,

astomakeday-to-daydecisionspeopledon’twanttohavetoalwayscalculate

probabilities,ordocomplicatedcostbenefitanalysis,andwilloftenuseheuristicstomake

naturalassessments(Tversky&Kahneman,1983).Theseheuristicsmayoversimplifythe

worldthoughandleadtobias.

APPENDIXB

COGNITIVEREFLECTIONTEST

TheCognitiveReflectionTest(CRT),developedbyShaneFrederickin2005,isa

studyinstrumentusedtodeterminehowreliantpeopleareonSystem1processing.Itisa

seriesofthreequestions,eachwithananswerthateasilyspringstomind,butisactually

wrong.TheideaisthatSystem2processesshouldoverridetheintuitiveresponsein

individualswhorelylessheavilyonintuitionandheuristics.Eachquestionisquiteeasy

onceexplained,sothereasonpeoplegetthequestionwrongisduetoalackofreflection,

notaninabilitytosolveit.Thetestisasfollows:

1. Abatandaballcost$1.10intotal.Thebatcosts$1.00morethantheball.Howmuchdoesthe

ballcost?[correctanswer=5cents;heuristicanswer=10cents]

2. Ifittakes5minutesforfivemachinestomakefivewidgets,howlongwouldittakefor100

machinestomake100widgets?[correctanswer=5minutes;heuristicanswer=100

minutes]

3. Inalake,thereisapatchoflilypads.Everyday,thepatchdoublesinsize.Ifittakes48days

forthepatchtocovertheentirelake,howlongwouldittakeforthepatchtocoverhalfofthe

lake?[correctanswer=47days;heuristicanswer=24days]

Thetestisunderstandablycorrelatedwithintelligence,numeracy,self-reportedSAT

scores,andwonderlicpersonalitytests.Thismakessense,asbothwouldrequirecritical

reasoning,aswellasreadingcomprehensionskills,evenifthemathisnotdifficult.Yetthe

CRTismorethanasimpleintelligencetest(Gerrans,2014),asitmoreatestofrelianceon

typeofcognitiveprocesses,whereasintelligencetestsaretestsofabilitytousethesecond

typeofprocesses(Toprak,West&Stanovich,2014,Pennycook,etal.,2012,Paxton,Ungar

&Green,2012,Paxton,Ungar&Green,2012,Pennycook,Cheyne,Barr,Koehler&

Fugelsang,2014,Pennycook,Cheyne,Barr,Koehler&Fugelsang,2014,Campitelli&

Labollita2010).

WhiletheCRTmaybeastrongpredictorofcognitivestyle,itisnotwithoutitsflaws.

Ithasbeenwidelyusedandoncepeopleknowofthecorrectanswersitisobviouslyno

longeruseful.ThisisespeciallytrueonsurveysiteslikeMechanicalTurkwhere

participantswilloftenhavealreadytakenthetest.Thereisalsoaflooreffectinnon-well-

educatedpopulations,asthetestisveryhardandmorethan50%ofpeoplegetnoneofthe

questionsright(Frederick,2005).Thismakesitimpossibletodifferentiatebetweenhalfof

thepopulation.Inourstudy,59%ofparticipantsanswered0outofthe3questionsright,

sothereisdefinitelyaneedforlowertraitdiscriminationproblems.

Sernyak 59

TherehavebeenafewprominenteffortstoaddquestionstotheCRT.Onesuch

effortwasundertakenbyToplak,West,andStanovichin2004.Theyadded4new

questionswiththehopeofaddingquestionstotheoriginalmeasure,whilealsoproviding

analternative.Theyfoundthenew7-questionmeasurewasabetterpredictorofrational

thinkingtasksthantheoriginalCRT.Italsodiscriminatedamonglowertraitindividuals

moresothantheoriginalduetotheincreasednumberofquestionsandwaseasierthanthe

CRT.ThemeanpercentofansweringaquestioncorrectlyontheoriginalCRTwas17,while

onthefournewquestionsthemeanwas24.Onedrawbackisthatonequestionismultiple

choicesoacorrectanswercouldbereachedbychance.Theproposedfourquestionswere

asfollows:

1. IfJohncandrinkonebarrelofwaterin6days,andMarycandrinkonebarrelofwaterin12

days,howlongwouldittakethemtodrinkonebarrelofwatertogether?________days[correct

answer=4days;heuristicanswer=9]

2. Jerryreceivedboththe15thhighestandthe15thlowestmarkintheclass.Howmanystudents

arethereintheclass?_____students[correctanswer=29students;heuristicanswer=30

students]

3. Amanbuysapigfor$60,sellsitfor$70,buysitbackfor80$,andsellsitfinallyfor$90.How

muchhashemade?_____dollars[correctanswer=$20;heuristicansweranswer=$10]

4. Simondecidedtoinvest$8,000inthestockmarketonedayearlyin2008.Sixmonthsafterhe

invested,onJuly17,thestockshehadpurchasedweredown%50.FortunatelyforSimon,

fromJuly17toOctober17,thestockshehadpurchasedwentup75%.AtthispointSimon

has:a.brokeneveninthestockmarket,b.isaheadofwherehebegan,c.haslostmoney

[correctanswer=c,becausethevalueatthispointis$7,000;heuristicanswer=b]

AnotherattempttoincreasethelengthoftheCRTwasundertakenbyPrimi,

Morsanyi,Chiesi,Donati,andHamiltonin2015.Theytestedamultitudeofquestionsand

reportedanadditionalthreetheybelievedwouldbeagoodadditiontothetest.Theirnew

testshowedagreaterabilitytodifferentiateamonglowertraitindividuals.Theyalso

suggestedusingItemResponseTheory(IRT)analysisinfuturestudiesinordertogain

moredifferentiationusingthesamenumberofquestions.Basically,itisawaytoweight

questionsandprovidegreaterlinkagebetweenitemsandlatencycharacteristics.

Ultimatelytheyfoundtheirnewquestions,alongwiththeoriginalquestions,couldcreatea

scorethroughIRTanalysisthatwasabetterpredictorofriskseekingbehaviorthan

intelligence,demonstratingtheirtestwasagainatestthatmeasuredmethodofthinking.

1. Ifthreeelvescanwrapthreetoysinanhour,howmanyelvesareneededtowrapsixtoysin2

hours?[correctanswer=3elves;heuristicanswer=6elves]

2. Jerryreceivedboththe15thhighestandthe15thlowestmarkintheclass.Howmanystudents

arethereintheclass?[correctanswer=29students;heuristicanswer=30students]

3. Inanathleticsteam,tallmembersarethreetimesmorelikelytowinamedalthanshort

members.Thisyeartheteamhaswon60medalssofar.Howmanyofthesehavebeenwonby

shortathletes?[correctanswer=15medals;heuristicanswer=20medals]

ThefinalrelevantattempttoexpandtheCRTwasundertakenbyBaronetal.in

2015.Thegroupattemptedtoaddwordproblemsinanefforttoexpandthescopeofthe

CRTaswellascorrectforthegenderednatureoftheoriginaltest,andonthenewtest

womenscoredaswellasmen.Theyalsofoundtheirtestwasavalidpredictorofmoral

judgment.Thetesthad11wordproblems,alongwiththeoriginalCRT,and3new

Sernyak 60

arithmeticproblems.Someexamplesofthewordproblemsareasfollows(toseethefull

testseeendofappendixA):

Allflowershavepetals.Roseshavepetals.Ifthesetwostatementsaretrue,canweconclude

fromthemthatrosesareflowers.YesNoAllmammalswalk.Whalesaremammals.Ifthesetwostatementsaretrue,canweconclude

fromthemthatwhaleswalk.YesNoInabox,someredthingsaresquare,andsomesquarethingsarelarge.Whatcanwe

conclude?[a.Somethingsarelargeb.Allthingsarelargec.Wecan’tconcludeanythingaboutredthingsandlargethings]

ThispapertakesdatafromastudythatseekstoexpandtheCRT.Participantswere

askedtheoriginalCRTquestionsaswellasthebestperformingonesfrompreviousCRT

expansionpapers.ProfessorKahanaddedsomequestionsofhisowninanefforttoanalyze

thepredictivepowerofthevariousCRTtests.Whathasshownthemostpromiseisan

inclusivemeasureofallofthetests,andithasbeenshowntobebothinternallyconsistent

anddiscriminativeacrossthelatencyvariable.Theproblemwiththetestisthatunlikethe

originalCRTitisverylong.

Baronetal.,2015-PROPOSALFORNEWCRT

Beliefbiasitemswithlures

1. Allflowershavepetals.

Roseshavepetals.

Ifthesetwostatementsaretrue,canweconcludefromthemthatrosesareflowers(no).

2. Allmammalswalk.

Whalesaremammals.

Ifthesetwostatementsaretrue,canweconcludefromthemthatwhaleswalk(yes).

3. Allthingsthathaveamotorneedoil.

Automobilesneedoil.

Ifthesetwostatementsaretrue,canweconcludefromthemthatautomobileshaveamotor(no).

4. Alllivingthingsneedwater.

Rosesneedwater.

…,canweconcludefromthemthatrosesarelivingthings(no).

5. Allvehicleshavewheels.

Boatsarevehicles.

…,canweconcludefromthemthatboatshavewheels(yes).

Syllogisms

1. Inabox,someredthingsaresquare,andsomesquarethingsarelarge.Whatcanweconclude?[a.

Someredthingsarelarge.b.Allredthingsarelarge.c.Wecan’tconcludeanythingaboutredthingsandlargethings.

2. Inabox,nogreenthingsareround,andallroundthingsarelarge.Whatcanweconclude?[a.No

greenthingsarelarge.b.Somegreenthingsarenotlarge.c.Wecan’tconcludeanythingaboutgreenthingsandlargethings.

3. Inabox,nobluethingsaretriangular,andnotriangularthingsarelarge.Whatcanweconclude?

[a.Nobluethingsarelarge.b.Somebluethingsarenotlarge.c.Wecan’tconcludeanythingaboutbluethingsandlargethings.]

OriginalCRTQuestions

…

NewArithmeticQuestions

Sernyak 61

1. Ifittakes2nurses2minutestomeasurethebloodpressureof2patients,howlongwouldittake200

nursestomeasurethebloodpressureof200patients?[correctanswer=2minutes;heuristicanswer

=200minutes]

2. Soupandsaladcost$5.50intotal.Thesoupcostsadollarmorethanthesalad.Howmuchdoesthe

saladcost?[correctanswer=$3.25and$2.25]

3. Sallyismakingsuntea.Everyhour,theconcentrationoftheteadoubles.Ifittakes6hoursforthetea

tobeready,howlongwouldittakefortheteatoreachhalfofthefinalconcentration?[correct

answer=5hours;heuristicanswer=3hours]

Otheritems

1. JackislookingatAnnebutAnneislookingatGeorge.JackismarriedbutGeorgeisnot.Isamarried

personlookingatanunmarriedperson?[a.Yesc.Noc.Cannotbedetermined]2. Ann’sfatherhasatotaloffivedaughters:Lala,Lele,Lili,Lolo,and______.Whatisthenameofthefifth

daughter?[Ann]

3. Onthesideofaboathangsaladderwithsixrungs.Eachrungisonefootfromthenextone,andthe

bottomrungisrestingonthesurfaceofthewater.Thetiderisesatarateofonefootanhour.How

longwilltakethewatertoreachthetoprung?[a.5hoursb.6hoursc.never]

APPENDIXC

MODELSUMMARIES

ModelWasonSelectiontaskcorrectanswer

Sernyak 62

ModelWasonSelectiontaskuseoflogic

ModelofconjunctionfallacyusingCRT