References
- Bačová, V., & Šrol, J. (2021). Cognitive predictors of delay discounting in monetary choices. Studia Psychologica, 63(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31577/sp.2021.02.817
- Ballová Mikušková, E. (2018). Conspiracy beliefs of future teachers. Current Psychology, 37(3), 692–701. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9561-4
- Baron, J., Scott, S., Fincher, K., & Emlen Metz, S. (2015). Why does the Cognitive Reflection Test (sometimes) predict utilitarian moral judgment (and other things)? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(3), 265–284. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.09.003
- Bensley, D. A., Grain, F., Lilienfeld, S. O., Rowan, K. A., & Masciocchi, C. M. (2020). The generality of belief in unsubstantiated claims. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3581
- Blackmore, S., & Trościanko, T. (1985). Belief in the paranormal: Probability judgements, illusory control, and the ‘chance baseline shift. British Journal of Psychology, 76(4), 459–468. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1985.tb01969.x
- Brotherton, R., & French, C. C. (2014). Belief in conspiracy theories and susceptibility to the conjunction fallacy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(2), 238–248. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2995
- Brotherton, R., French, C. C., & Pickering, A. D. (2013). Measuring belief in conspiracy theories: The generic conspiracist beliefs scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–15. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00279
- Browne, M., Thomson, P., Rockloff, M. J., & Pennycook, G. (2015). Going against the herd: Psychological and cultural factors underlying the “vaccination confidence gap. PLoS One, 10(9), e0132562–14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132562
- Bruder, M., Haffke, P., Neave, N., Nouripanah, N., & Imhoff, R. (2013). Measuring individual differences in generic beliefs in conspiracy theories across cultures: Conspiracy mentality questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 225. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225
- Čavojová, V., & Ersoy, S. (2020). The role of scientific reasoning and religious beliefs in use of complementary and alternative medicine. Journal of Public Health (Oxford, England), 42(3), e239–e248. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdz120
- Čavojová, V., Secară, E.-C., Jurkovič, M., & Šrol, J. (2019). Reception and willingness to share pseudo-profound bullshit and their relation to other epistemically suspect beliefs and cognitive ability in Slovakia and Romania. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 299–311. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3486
- Čavojová, V., Šrol, J., & Adamus, M. (2018). My point is valid, yours is not: Myside bias in reasoning about abortion. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 30(7), 656–669. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2018.1518961
- Čavojová, V., Šrol, J., & Ballová Mikušková, E. (2020). How scientific reasoning correlates with health-related beliefs and behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic? Journal of Health Psychology. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105320962266
- Čavojová, V., Šrol, J., & Jurkovič, M. (2020). Why should we try to think like scientists? Scientific reasoning and susceptibility to epistemically suspect beliefs and cognitive biases. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3595
- Cokely, E. T., Galesic, M., Schulz, E., Ghazal, S., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2012). Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(1), 25–47.
- Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., Parker, A., & Rowley, K. (2014). Misperception of chance, conjunction, belief in the paranormal and reality testing: A reappraisal. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(5), 711–719. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3057
- Dagnall, N., Parker, A., & Munley, G. (2007). Paranormal belief and reasoning. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1406–1415. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.017
- Darwin, H., Neave, N., & Holmes, J. (2011). Belief in conspiracy theories. The role of paranormal belief, paranoid ideation and schizotypy. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(8), 1289–1293. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.027
- Drummond, C., & Fischhoff, B. (2017a). Development and validation of the scientific reasoning scale. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1906
- Drummond, C., & Fischhoff, B. (2017b). Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(36), 9587–9592. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1704882114
- Drummond, C., & Fischhoff, B. (2019). Does “putting on your thinking cap” reduce myside bias in evaluation of scientific evidence? Thinking & Reasoning, 25(4), 477–505. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2018.1548379
- Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 390–405. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390
- Evans, J. S. B. T. (2014). Two minds rationality. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 129–146. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.845605
- Fasce, A., & Picó, A. (2019a). Conceptual foundations and validation of the Pseudoscientific Belief Scale. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(4), 617-628. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3501
- Fasce, A., & Picó, A. (2019b). Science as a vaccine the relation between scientific literacy and unwarranted beliefs. Science & Education, 28(1–2), 109–125. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-00022-0
- Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G * Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
- Fiedler, K. (2000). Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychological Review, 107(4), 659–676. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.107.4.659
- Grebe, E., & Nattrass, N. (2012). AIDS conspiracy beliefs and unsafe sex in Cape Town. AIDS and Behavior, 16(3), 761–773. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-011-9958-2
- Halama, P. (2019). Construction and psychometric properties of the epistemologically unfounded beliefs scale. In I. Piterová & J. Výrost (Eds.), Proceedings of the social processes and personality 2018 conference (pp. 124–133). Institute of Social Sciences CSPV SAS. http://www.spao.eu/files/spo-proceedings18.pdf
- Hines, T. (2002). Pseudoscience and the paranormal. Prometheus Books. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/ejoc.201200111
- Jensen, T. (2013). Democrats and Republicans differ on conspiracy theory beliefs. https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/polls/democrats-and-republicans-differ-on-conspiracy-theory-beliefs/
- Jolley, D., & Paterson, J. L. (2020). Pylons ablaze: Examining the role of 5G COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and support for violence. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(3), 628–640. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12394
- Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
- Klaczynski, P. A. (2014). Heuristics and biases: Interactions among numeracy, ability, and reflectiveness predict normative responding. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–13. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00665
- Klose, J., Černochová, D., & Král, P. (2002). Vídeňský maticový test. Testcentrum.
- Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., & Oberauer, K. (2013). The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS One, 8(10), e75637. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075637
- Lewandowsky, S., & Oberauer, K. (2016). Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(4), 217–222. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416654436
- Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, G. E. (2013). NASA faked the moon landing-therefore, (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological Science, 24(5), 622–633. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457686
- Lindeman, M. (2011). Biases in intuitive reasoning and belief in complementary and alternative medicine. Psychology & Health, 26(3), 371–382. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440903440707
- Lindeman, M., & Aarnio, K. (2006). Paranormal beliefs: Their dimensionality and correlates. European Journal of Personality, 20(7), 585–602. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/per.608
- Lindeman, M., & Aarnio, K. (2007). Superstitious, magical, and paranormal beliefs: An integrative model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(4), 731–744. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.06.009
- Lipkus, I. M., Samsa, G., & Rimer, B. K. (2001). General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making: An International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 21(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X0102100105
- Lobato, E., Mendoza, J., Sims, V., & Chin, M. (2014). Examining the relationship between conspiracy theories, paranormal beliefs, and pseudoscience acceptance among a university population. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(5), 617–625. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3042
- Macpherson, R., & Stanovich, K. E. (2007). Cognitive ability, thinking dispositions, and instructional set as predictors of critical thinking. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(2), 115–127. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.05.003
- Majima, Y. (2015). Belief in pseudoscience, cognitive style and science literacy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(4), 552–559. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3136
- Mancosu, M., Vassallo, S., & Vezzoni, C. (2017). Believing in conspiracy theories: Evidence from an exploratory analysis of Italian survey data. South European Society and Politics, 22(3), 327–344. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2017.1359894
- Nimon, K., Oswald, F., & Roberts, J. K. (2020). yhat: Interpreting Regression Effects. R package version 2.0-3. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/yhat/yhat.pdf
- Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(6), 549–563.
- Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. a., & Koehler, D. J. (2015). Everyday consequences of analytic thinking. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 425–432. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415604610
- Prike, T., Arnold, M. M., & Williamson, P. (2017). Psychics, aliens, or experience? Using the Anomalistic Belief Scale to examine the relationship between type of belief and probabilistic reasoning. Consciousness and Cognition, 53, 151–164. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2017.06.003
- Risen, J. L. (2016). Believing what we do not believe: Acquiescence to superstitious beliefs and other powerful intuitions. Psychological Review, 123(2), 182–207. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000017
- Rizeq, J., Flora, D. B., & Toplak, M. E. (2021). An examination of the underlying dimensional structure of three domains of contaminated mindware: Paranormal beliefs, conspiracy beliefs, and anti-science attitudes. Thinking and Reasoning, 27(2), 187–211. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1759688
- Rogers, P., Davis, T., & Fisk, J. (2009). Paranormal belief and susceptibility to the conjunction fallacy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(4), 524–542. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1472
- Rogers, P., Fisk, J. E., & Lowrie, E. (2016). Paranormal believers’ susceptibility to confirmatory versus disconfirmatory conjunctions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(4), 628–634. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3222
- Rogers, P., Fisk, J. E., & Lowrie, E. (2017). Paranormal belief and errors of probabilistic reasoning: The role of constituent conditional relatedness in believers' susceptibility to the conjunction fallacy. Consciousness and Cognition, 56, 13–29. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2017.09.010
- Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
- Šrol, J. (2019). Individual differences in susceptibility to cognitive biases: Implications for theories of rational thought [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Bratislava, Slovakia: Comenius University in Bratislava.
- Šrol, J., & De Neys, W. (2021). Predicting individual differences in conflict detection and bias susceptibility during reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 27(1), 38–68. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2019.1708793
- Ståhl, T., & van Prooijen, J.-W. (2018). Epistemic rationality: Skepticism toward unfounded beliefs requires sufficient cognitive ability and motivation to be rational. Personality and Individual Differences, 122, 155–163. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.026
- Stanovich, K. E., Toplak, M. E., & West, R. F. (2008). The development of rational thought: A taxonomy of heuristics and biases. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 36, 251–285. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2407(08)00006-2
- Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 672–695. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.672
- Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2011). Individual differences as essential components of heuristics and biases research. In K. Manktelow, D. E. Over, & S. Elqayam (Eds.), The science of reason: A festschrift for Jonathan St. B. T. Evans (pp. 355–396). Psychology Press.
- Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2016). The rationality quotient: Toward a test of rational thinking. MIT Press.
- Stone, A., McDermott, M. R., Abdi, A., Cornwell, B., Matyas, Z., Reed, R., & Watt, R. (2018). Development and validation of the multi-dimensional questionnaire of scientifically unsubstantiated beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 128, 146–156. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.02.024
- Svedholm, A. M., & Lindeman, M. (2013). The separate roles of the reflective mind and involuntary inhibitory control in gatekeeping paranormal beliefs and the underlying intuitive confusions. British Journal of Psychology (London, England: 1953), 104(3), 303–319. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2012.02118.x
- Svedholm-Häkkinen, A. M., & Lindeman, M. (2018). Actively open-minded thinking: Development of a shortened scale and disentangling attitudes towards knowledge and people. Thinking and Reasoning, 24(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2017.1378723
- Swami, V., Voracek, M., Stieger, S., Tran, U. S., & Furnham, A. (2014). Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories. Cognition, 133(3), 572–585. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.006
- Thomson, K. S., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2016). Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1), 99–113.
- Tobacyk, J. J. (2004). A revised paranormal belief scale. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 23(1), 94–98. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.24972/ijts.2004.23.1.94
- Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2011). The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Memory & Cognition, 39(7), 1275–1289. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1
- Torres, M. N., Barberia, I., & Rodríguez-Ferreiro, J. (2020). Causal illusion as a cognitive basis of pseudoscientific beliefs. British Journal of Psychology (London, England: 1953), 111(4), 840–813. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12441
- Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science (New York, N.Y.), 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
- Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293–315. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.293
- van der Wal, R. C., Sutton, R. M., Lange, J., & Braga, J. P. N. (2018). Suspicious binds: Conspiracy thinking and tenuous perceptions of causal connections between co-occurring and spuriously correlated events. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(7), 970–989. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2507
- van Prooijen, J.-W., Douglas, K. M., & Inocencio, C. D. (2018). Connecting the dots: Illusory pattern perception predicts belief in conspiracies and the supernatural. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(3), 320–335. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2331
- van Prooijen, J.-W., Krouwel, A. P. M., & Pollet, T. V. (2015). Political extremism predicts belief in conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(5), 570–578. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614567356
- Watson, D. (1992). Correcting for acquiescent response bias in the absence of a balanced scale: An application to class consciousness. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(1), 52–88. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021001003