High cognitive ability not a safeguard from conspiracies, paranormal beliefs

November 14, 2017
Is skepticism toward unfounded beliefs just a matter of cognitive ability? Not according to new research by a University of Illinois at Chicago social psychologist. Credit: UIC

The moon landing and global warming are hoaxes. The U.S. government had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. A UFO crashed in Roswell, New Mexico.

Is skepticism toward these kinds of unfounded beliefs just a matter of cognitive ability? Not according to new research by a University of Illinois at Chicago social psychologist.

In an article published online and in the February 2018 issue of the journal Personality and Individual Differences, Tomas Ståhl reports on two studies that examined why some people are inclined to believe in various conspiracies and paranormal phenomena.

"We show that reasonable skepticism about various theories and paranormal phenomena does not only require a relatively high cognitive ability, but also strong motivation to be rational," says Ståhl, UIC visiting assistant professor of psychology and lead author of the study.

"When the motivation to form your beliefs based on logic and evidence is not there, people with high cognitive ability are just as likely to believe in conspiracies and paranormal phenomena as people with lower cognitive ability."

Previous work in this area has indicated that people with higher cognitive ability—or a more analytic thinking style—are less inclined to believe in conspiracies and the paranormal.

Ståhl and co-author Jan-Willem van Prooijen of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam conducted two online surveys with more than 300 respondents each to assess and other factors that might promote skepticism toward unfounded beliefs.

The first survey found that an analytic cognitive style was associated with weaker paranormal beliefs, conspiracy beliefs and conspiracy mentality. However, this was only the case among participants who strongly valued forming their beliefs based on logic and evidence.

Among participants who did not strongly value a reliance on logic and evidence, having an analytic cognitive style was not associated with weaker in the paranormal or in various conspiracy theories.

In the second survey, the researchers examined whether these effects were uniquely attributable to having an analytic cognitive style or whether they were explained by more general individual differences in cognitive ability. Results were more consistent with a general cognitive ability account.

The article notes that despite a century of better educational opportunities and increased intelligence scores in the U.S. population, unfounded beliefs remain pervasive in contemporary society.

"Our findings suggest that part of the reason may be that many people do not view it as sufficiently important to form their beliefs on rational grounds," Ståhl said.

From linking vaccines with autism to climate change skepticism, these widespread conspiracy theories and other unfounded beliefs can lead to harmful behavior, according to Ståhl.

"Many of these beliefs can, unfortunately, have detrimental consequences for individuals' health choices, as well as for society as a whole," he said.

Explore further: Coincidence or conspiracy? Studies investigate conspiracist thinking

More information: Tomas Ståhl et al. Epistemic rationality: Skepticism toward unfounded beliefs requires sufficient cognitive ability and motivation to be rational, Personality and Individual Differences (2017). DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.026

Related Stories

Coincidence or conspiracy? Studies investigate conspiracist thinking

October 1, 2015
In pop culture, conspiracy believers—like FBI agent Fox Mulder on The X Files or professor Robert Langdon in The Da Vinci Code—tend to reject the notion of coincidence or chance; even the most random-seeming events are ...

Social exclusion leads to conspiratorial thinking, study finds

February 16, 2017
Recent polls have shown that many white, working-class people in America feel pushed out by society, a reason why many voted for President Donald Trump. Many of these supporters latched onto misinformation spread online, ...

Recommended for you

Stress in pregnancy linked to changes in infant's nervous system, less smiling, less resilience

November 23, 2017
Maternal stress during the second trimester of pregnancy may influence the nervous system of the developing child, both before and after birth, and may have subtle effects on temperament, resulting in less smiling and engagement, ...

Domestic violence turns women off masculine men

November 23, 2017
Women who are afraid of violence within partnerships prefer more feminine men, according to new research carried out by scientists at the University of St Andrews.

Study finds infection and schizophrenia symptom link

November 22, 2017
If a mother's immune system is activated by infection during pregnancy, it could result in critical cognitive deficits linked to schizophrenia in her offspring, a University of Otago study has revealed.

Schizophrenia drug development may be 'de-risked' with new research tool

November 22, 2017
Researchers at Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) and the New York State Psychiatric Institute (NYSPI) have identified biomarkers that can aid in the development of better treatments for schizophrenia.

Self-harm, suicide attempts climb among US girls, study says

November 21, 2017
Attempted suicides, drug overdoses, cutting and other types of self-injury have increased substantially in U.S. girls, a 15-year study of emergency room visits found.

Car, stroller, juice: Babies understand when words are related

November 20, 2017
The meaning behind infants' screeches, squeals and wails may frustrate and confound sleep-deprived new parents. But at an age when babies cannot yet speak to us in words, they are already avid students of language.

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

VOR_
not rated yet Nov 14, 2017
As an critical-thinking epistemologist, I agree with the most everything said here, and that it should be said. But I would like for people to look at the broad world-based evidence (and closer at the USA situation) for the 'absolute safety' of vaccines...any and all vaccine schedules being an included consideration...can you really be so sure they are so safe? That topic simply does NOT 'check all the boxes' for 'unfounded' as the rest of the topics. And that could have to do with the existential nature of vaccines. They are among few things that are both 'preemptive/proactive' and 'seemingly not completely without risk'. But cultural bias may be at play because there is nothing like vaccines. ('getting enough exercise' is not the same dynamic culturally) .Don't be so sure you are not biased about it.. if you are 'sure' there is 'absolutely nothing to it', that is. Ironic, that it keeps getting thrown in with the rest of these.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.