Thinking false and slow: Implausible beliefs and the Cognitive Reflection Test.

Area of Science:

• Cognitive Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Belief Formation

Background:

• Previous research links belief in implausible claims (e.g., fake news, conspiracy theories) to cognitive miserliness.
• The Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) is often used to assess analytical versus intuitive thinking styles.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the cognitive processes underlying belief in implausible claims.
• To test whether lower performance on the CRT by believers in implausible claims is due to cognitive miserliness or other factors.

Main Methods:

• A study involving 664 participants compared performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT).
• Measures included total score, intuitive errors, and response time.
• Participants were categorized as endorsers or non-endorsers of implausible claims.

Main Results:

• Endorsers of implausible claims performed worse overall on the CRT compared to non-endorsers.
• However, endorsers took significantly longer to answer CRT questions.
• Endorsers did not make proportionally more intuitive mistakes than non-endorsers.

Conclusions:

• Endorsers of implausible claims appear to engage in effortful information processing.
• Poorer CRT performance in endorsers may not solely reflect a more intuitive or non-analytical cognitive style.
• The relationship between cognitive style and belief in implausible claims may be more complex than previously assumed.