When beliefs and evidence collide: psychological and ideological predictors of motivated reasoning about climate change

References

• Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brenswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (2019). The authoritarian personality. Verso Books.
   Google Scholar
• Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432–443.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altemeyer, B. (1996). Dogmatism. In B. Altemeyer (Ed.), The authoritarian specter. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Altemeyer, B. (2002). Dogmatic behavior among students: Testing a new measure of dogmatism. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(6), 713–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540209603931
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amit, A., & Sagiv, L. (2013). The role of epistemic motivation in individuals’ response to decision complexity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(1), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Appelbaum, A. (2020). Twilight of democracy: The seductive lure of authoritarianism. Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Azarian, B. (2015, February 25). Spreading pseudoscience: 5 reasons why some liberals are as bad as conservatives. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bobby-azarian/spreading-pseudoscience-5-reasons-liberals_b_6694374.html
   Google Scholar
• Ball, L., Thompson, V. A., & Stupple, E. J. N. (2018). Conflict and dual process theory: The case of belief bias. In W. De Neys (Ed.), Dual process theory 2.0 (pp. 100–120). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Baum, M. A., & Potter, P. B. (2019). Media, public opinion, and foreign policy in the age of social media. The Journal of Politics, 81(2), 747–756. https://doi.org/10.1086/702233
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayes, R., & Druckman, J. N. (2021). Motivated reasoning and climate change. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billeh, V. Y., & Zakhariades, G. A. (1975). The development and application of a scale for measuring scientific attitudes. Science Education, 59(2), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730590203
   Google Scholar
• Bode, L., & Vraga, E. K. (2015). In related news, that was wrong: The correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 619–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12166
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boykoff, M. T. (2008). Lost in translation? United States television news coverage of anthropogenic climate change, 1995–2004. Climatic Change, 86(1–2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-007-9299-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14(2), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bronstein, M. V., Pennycook, G., Joormann, J., Corlett, P. R., & Cannon, T. D. (2019). Dual-process theory, conflict processing, and delusional belief. Clinical Psychology Review, 72, 101748.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brüggemann, M., & Engesser, S. (2017). Beyond false balance: How interpretive journalism shapes media coverage of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 42, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caddick, Z. (2015). Brief climate change belief questionnaire. Unpublished. San Jose State University.
   Google Scholar
• 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/10.1002/acp.3595
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chmielewski, M., & Kucker, S. C. (2020). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619875149
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cillizzia, C. (2021, July 12). Donald Trump just accidently told the truth about his view on polls. CNN. Retrieved July 12, 2021, from https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/12/politics/donald-trump-polls-cpac-straw-poll/index.html
   Google Scholar
• Clifford, S., Jewell, R. M., & Waggoner, P. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Research & Politics, 4(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015622072
   Google Scholar
• Conservatism. (n.d.). Retrieved online August 7, 2017 from http://Merriam-Webster.com.
   Google Scholar
• Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., Way, R., Jacobs, P., & Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2), 024024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbett, J. B., & Durfee, J. L. (2004). Testing public (un)certainty of science: Media representations of global warming. Science Communication, 26(2), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547004270234
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crowson, H. M. (2009). Does the DOG scale measure dogmatism? Another look at construct validity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(3), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.149.3.365-383
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crowson, H. M., DeBacker, T. K., & Davis, K. A. (2008). The DOG Scale: A valid measure of dogmatism? Journal of Individual Differences, 29(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.29.1.17
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neys, W. (2012). Bias and conflict: A case for logical intuitions. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 7(1), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611429354
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Neys, W. (Ed.). (2018). Dual process theory 2.0. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dennis, B., Mufson, S., & Clement, S. (2019, September 13). Americans increasingly see climate change as a crisis, poll says. The Washington Post. Retrieved July 10, 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/americans-increasingly-see-climate-change-as-a-crisis-poll-shows/2019/09/12/74234db0-cd2a-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html
   Google Scholar
• Digman, J. M., & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the five robust factors of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(1), 116–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.1.116
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., & McGrath, M. C. (2019). The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nature Climate Change, 9(2), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0360-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Du, S., & Gregory, S. (2016, November). The Echo Chamber Effect in Twitter: Does community polarization increase? In H. Cherifi, S. Gaito, W. Quattrociocchi, & A. Sala (Eds.), International workshop on complex networks and their applications (pp. 373–378). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Duckitt, J., Bizumic, B., Krauss, S. W., & Heled, E. (2010). A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism-conservatism-traditionalism model. Political Psychology, 31(5), 685–715. [Database] https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00781.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein, S. (1990). Cognitive– Experiential self theory. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 165–192). Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. The American Psychologist, 49(8), 709–724. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.49.8.709
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. T. (2002). The influence of prior belief on scientific thinking. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 193–210). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. T. (2011). Dual-process theories of reasoning: Contemporary issues and developmental applications. Developmental Review, 31(2–3), 86–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2011.07.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. T., & Over, D. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feist, G. J. (2006). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feist, G. J. (2012). Predicting interest in and attitudes toward science from personality and need for cognition. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(7), 771–775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, B. J. (1981). Test of science related attitudes. Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Freud, S. (1900/1981). Die traumdeutung [Interpretation of dreams]. Fisher Verlag. (Original work published 1900)
   Google Scholar
• Funk, C., & Kennedy, B. (2020). How Americans see climate change and the environment in 7 charts. Pew Research Center Fact Tank. Retrieved June 17, 2021, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/21/how-americans-see-climate-change-and-the-environment-in-7-charts/
   Google Scholar
• Gallup. (2016, March 16). U.S. concern about global warming at eight-year high. http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Gorman, M. E. (1992). Simulating science: Heuristics, mental models, and technoscientific thinking. Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, S. J., & Gallo, D. A. (2016). Paranormal psychic believers and skeptics: A large-scale test of the cognitive differences hypothesis. Memory & Cognition, 44(2), 242–261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gwet, K. L. (2008). Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61(Pt 1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711006X126600
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huff, C., & Tingley, D. (2015). Who are these people? Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research & Politics, 2(3), 205316801560464. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015604648
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jern, A., Chang, K. M. K., & Kemp, C. (2014). Belief polarization is not always irrational. Psychological Review, 121(2), 206–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035941
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (3rd ed., pp. 114–158). Cambridge University Press; Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L.A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M. (2012). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection: An experimental study. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407–424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M. (2015a). Climate‐science communication and the measurement problem. Political Psychology, 36, 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M. (2015b). The politically motivated reasoning paradigm, Part 1: What politically motivated reasoning is and how to measure it. In R. Scott & S. Kosslyn (Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource (pp. 1–16). John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732–735. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, 49, 49–81.
   Google Scholar
• Kardash, C. M., & Scholes, R. J. (1996). Effects of preexisting beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 260–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, J., Tabibian, B., Oh, A., Schölkopf, B., & Gomez-Rodriguez, M. (2018, February). Leveraging the crowd to detect and reduce the spread of fake news and misinformation. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (pp. 324–332). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159652.3159734
   Google Scholar
• Klaczynski, P. A. (1997). Bias in adolescents’ everyday reasoning and its relationship with intellectual ability, personal theories, and self-serving motivation. Developmental Psychology, 33(2), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.2.273
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klaczynski, P. A., & Narasimham, G. (1998). Development of scientific reasoning biases: Cognitive versus ego-protective explanations. Developmental Psychology, 34(1), 175–187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kovaka, K. (2021). Climate change denial and beliefs about science. Synthese, 198(3), 2355–2374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02210-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruglanski, A. W., Jasko, K., & Friston, K. (2020). All thinking is 'Wishful' Thinking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(6), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.03.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruglanski, A. W., & Klar, Y. (1987). A view from a bridge: Synthesizing the consistency and attribution paradigms from a lay epistemic perspective. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17(2), 211–241. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420170208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lacap, M. P. (2015). The scientific attitudes of students major in science in the new teacher education curriculum. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 3(5), 7–15.
   Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky, S. (2021). Climate change disinformation and how to combat it. Annual Review of Public Health, 42, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102409
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindeman, M. (1998). Motivation, cognition and pseudoscience. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 39(4), 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9450.00085
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lobato, E. J. C., & Zimmerman, C. (2018). Examining how people reason about controversial scientific topics. Thinking and Reasoning, 67, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00376456
   Google Scholar
• Lombardi, D., Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2016). Plausibility judgments in conceptual change and epistemic cognition. Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1113134
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandel, D. R. (2014). The psychology of Bayesian reasoning. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1144. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01144
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (2008). Juror need for cognition and sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(2), 385–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00310.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCright, A. M. (2011). Political orientation moderates Americans’ beliefs and concern about climate change. Climatic Change, 104(2), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9946-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 155–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Heintz, C. (2014). Scientists’ argumentative reasoning. Topoi, 33(2), 513–524.
   Google Scholar
• Messick, S. (1976). Individuality in learning. Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Messick, S. (1984). The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 19(2), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461528409529283
   Google Scholar
• Mooney, C. (2011, May/June). The science of why we don’t believe science. Mother Jones, 11p. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/denial-science-chris-mooney/
   Google Scholar
• Moss, A. J., Rosenzweig, C., Robinson, J., Jaffe, S. N., & Litman, L. (2020, April 28). Is it ethical to use Mechanical Turk for behavioral research? Relevant data from a representative survey of MTurk participants and wages. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/jbc9d
   Google Scholar
• Neuberg, S. L., Judice, T. N., & West, S. G. (1997). What the need for closure scale measures and what it does not: Toward differentiating among related epistemic motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1396–1412. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1396
   Google Scholar
• Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
   Google Scholar
• Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2014). Cognitive style and religiosity: The role of conflict detection. Memory & Cognition, 42(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0340-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological Science, 31(7), 770–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620939054
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Cognitive reflection and the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(2), 224–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218783192
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petersen, A. M., Vincent, E. M., & Westerling, A. L. (2019). Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians. Nature Communications, 10(1), 1–14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peterson, R. A., & Merunka, D. R. (2019). Convenience samples of college students and research reproducibility. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 1035–1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.08.010
   Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2015, January 29). What Americans and scientists think about science. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/29/5-key-findings-science/
   Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2016, October 4). 1. Public views on climate change and climate scientists. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2012/10/15/more-say-there-is-solid-evidence-of-global-warming/
   Google Scholar
• Ranney, M. A., & Clark, D. (2016). Climate change conceptual change: Scientific information can transform attitudes. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 49–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ripberger, J. T., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Silva, C. L., Carlson, D. E., Gupta, K., Carlson, N., & Dunlap, R. E. (2017). Bayesian versus politically motivated reasoning in human perception of climate anomalies. Environmental Research Letters, 12(11), 114004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8cfc
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadowski, C. J., & Cogburn, H. E. (1997). Need for cognition in the big-five factor structure. The Journal of Psychology, 131(3), 307–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223989709603517
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadowski, C. J., & Gulgoz, S. (1992). Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the Need for Cognition Scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74(2), 610–610. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1992.74.2.610
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916216
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinatra, G. M., & Lombardi, D. (2020). Evaluating sources of scientific evidence and claims in the post-truth era may require reappraising plausibility judgments. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1730181
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Slothuus, R., & De Vreese, C. H. (2010). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. The Journal of Politics, 72(3), 630–645. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002238161000006X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Speers, T., & Lewis, J. (2004). Journalists and jabs: Media coverage of the MMR vaccine. Communication & Medicine, 1(2), 171–181.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stanley, S. K., & Wilson, M. S. (2019). Meta-analysing the association between social dominance orientation, authoritarianism, and attitudes on the environment and climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 61, 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1997). Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 342–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.342
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(2), 161–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.127.2.161
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2016). The rationality quotient: Toward a test of rational thinking. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stenner, K. (2009). Three kinds of “conservatism”. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2–3), 142–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400903028615
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stern, C., & Axt, J. (2020). Investigating whether group status modulates the relationship between individual differences in epistemic motivation and political conservatism. Journal of Research in Personality, 86, 103940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.103940
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tappin, B. M., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Thinking clearly about causal inferences of politically motivated reasoning: Why paradigmatic study designs often undermine causal inference. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thagard, P. (2004). Rationality and science. In A. R. Mele & R. Rawling (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of rationality (pp. 363–379). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, K. A., & Clifford, S. (2017). Validity and Mechanical Turk: An assessment of exclusion methods and interactive experiments. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 184–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031322
   Google Scholar
• Tweney, R. (1998). Toward a cognitive psychology of science: Recent research and its implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(5), 150–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10836837
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Bavel, J. J., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., Crockett, M. J., Crum, A. J., Douglas, K. M., Druckman, J. N., Drury, J., Dube, O., Ellemers, N., Finkel, E. J., Fowler, J. H., Gelfand, M., Han, S., Haslam, S. A., … Willer, R. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 460–471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward, T., & Garety, P. A. (2019). Fast and slow thinking in distressing delusions: A review of the literature and implications for targeted therapy. Schizophrenia Research, 203, 80–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West, R. F., Meserve, R. J., & Stanovich, K. E. (2012). Cognitive sophistication does not attenuate the bias blind spot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 506–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028857
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West, R. F., Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 930–941. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012842
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woo, S. E., Harms, P. D., & Kuncel, N. R. (2007). Integrating personality and intelligence: Typical intellectual engagement and need for cognition. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1635–1639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar