Insight problem solving ability predicts reduced susceptibility to fake news, bullshit, and overclaiming

References

• Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagassi, M. (2019). Insight problem solving and unconscious analytic thought. New lines of research. Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Technology: Inferential Models for Logic, Language, Cognition, and Computation, 49, 120.
   Google Scholar
• Bagassi, M., & Macchi, L. (2016). The interpretative function and the emergence of unconscious analytic thought. In L. Macchi, M. Bagassi, & R. Viale (Eds.), Cognitive unconscious and human rationality (pp 43–76). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baron, J., Scott, S., Fincher, K. S., & Metz, S. E. (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/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball, L. J., Marsh, J. E., Litchfield, D., Cook, R. L., & Booth, N. (2015). When distraction helps: Evidence that concurrent articulation and irrelevant speech can facilitate insight problem solving. Thinking & Reasoning, 21(1), 76–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2014.934399
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball, L. J., & Stevens, A. (2009). Evidence for a verbally-based analytic component to insight problem solving. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1060–1065).
   Google Scholar
• Becker, M., Wiedemann, G., & Kühn, S. (2020). Quantifying insightful problem solving: A modified compound remote associates paradigm using lexical priming to parametrically modulate different sources of task difficulty. Psychological Research, 84(2), 528–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1042-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benedek, M., & Jauk, E. (2018). Spontaneous and controlled processes in creative cognition. In K. Christoff & K. C. R. Fox (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of spontaneous thought: Mind-wandering, creativity, and dreaming Vol. 1 (pp. 285–298). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benedek, M., Stoiser, R., Benedek, M., Stoiser, R., Walcher, S., & Körner, C. (2017). Eye Behavior associated with internally versus externally directed cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1092. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01092
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(4), 634–639. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195543
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2007). Methods for investigating the neural components of insight. Methods (San Diego, Calif.), 42(1), 87–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowden, E. M., Jung-Beeman, M., Fleck, J. I., & Kounios, J. (2005). New approaches to demystifying insight. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(7), 322–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.05.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt, M. J., Evans, A. M., & Crawford, J. T. (2015). The unthinking or confident extremist? Political extremists are more likely than moderates to reject experimenter-generated anchors. Psychological Science, 26(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614559730
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bronstein, M. V., Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Rand, D. G., & Cannon, T. D. (2019). Belief in fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism, and reduced analytic thinking. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(1), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0101832
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandler, J., Mueller, P., & Paolacci, G. (2014). Non-naivete among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behavior Research Methods, 46(1), 112–130. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen-Zimerman, S., Salvi, C., & Grafman, J. (2020). Patients-based approaches to understanding intelligence and problem-solving. The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence and Cognitive Neuroscience (pp. 382–398).
   Google Scholar
• Cristofori, I., Salvi, C., Grafman, J., & Beeman, M. (2016). The politics of insight. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(6), 1064–1072. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1136338
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danek, A. H., Fraps, T., von Müller, A., Grothe, B., & Öllinger, M. (2014). Working wonders? Investigating insight with magic tricks. Cognition, 130(2), 174–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danek, A. H., & Salvi, C. (2020). Moment of truth: Why Aha! Experiences are correct. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(2), 484–486. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.380
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danek, A. H., & Wiley, J. (2016). What about false insights? Deconstructing the Aha! Experience along its multiple dimensions for correct and incorrect solutions separately. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(January), 2077–2014. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02077
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dominowski, R. L., & Dallob, P. (1995). Insight and problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 273–278). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dallob, P. I., & Dominowski, R. L. (1993). Erroneous solutions to verbal insight problems: Effects of highlighting critical material. Paper presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Portland, OR.
   Google Scholar
• Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerosa, T., Gui, M., Hargittai, E., & Nguyen, M. (2021). (Mis)informed during COVID-19: How education level and information sources contribute to knowledge gaps. International Journal of Communication, 15, 22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gozzi, M., Zamboni, G., Krueger, F., & Grafman, J. (2010). Interest in politics modulates neural activity in the amygdala and ventral striatum. Human Brain Mapping, 31(11), 1763–1771. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20976
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamann, S. (2001). Cognitive and neural mechanisms of emotional memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(9), 394–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01707-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hills, T. T. (2019). The dark side of information proliferation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(3), 323–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618803647
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E. M., Haberman, J., Frymiare, J. L., Arambel-Liu, S., Greenblatt, R., Reber, P. J., & Kounios, J. (2004). Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight. PLoS Biology, 2(4), e97–510. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020097
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Strauss, Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Konishi, M., Brown, K., Battaglini, L., & Smallwood, J. (2017). When attention wanders: Pupillometric signatures of fluctuations in external attention. Cognition, 168, 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2014). The Cognitive Neuroscience of Insight. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 71–93.
   Google Scholar
• Lammers, J., Koch, A., Conway, P., & Brandt, M. J. (2017). The political domain appears simpler to the politically extreme than to political moderates. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(6), 612–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616678456
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laukkonen, R. E., Kaveladze, B. T., Tangen, J. M., & Schooler, J. W. (2020a). The dark side of Eureka: Artificially induced Aha moments make facts feel true. Cognition, 196, 104122.
   Google Scholar
• Laukkonen, R. E., Webb, M. E., Salvi, C., Schooler, J. W., & Tangen, J. M. (2020b). The Eureka heuristic: Relying on insight to appraise the quality of ideas. Preprint, February, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EZ3TN
   Google Scholar
• Laukkonen, R. E., Ingledew, D. J., Grimmer, H. J., Schooler, J. W., & Tangen, J. M. (2021). Getting a grip on insight: real-time and embodied Aha experiences predict correct solutions. Cognition & Emotion, 35(5), 918–935.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., Metzger, M. J., Nyhan, B., Pennycook, G., Rothschild, D., Schudson, M., Sloman, S. A., Sunstein, C. R., Thorson, E. A., Watts, D. J., & Zittrain, J. L. (2018). The science of fake news: Addressing fake news requires a multidisciplinary effort. Science (New York, N.Y.), 359(6380), 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, H., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2023). Thinking more or thinking differently? Using drift-diffusion modeling to illuminate why accuracy prompts decrease misinformation sharing. Cognition, 230, 105312.
   Google Scholar
• Lubin, G. (2012). A simple logic question that most Harvard students get wrong. Business Insider. http://www.businessinsider.com/question-that-harvard-students-get-wrong-2012-12.
   Google Scholar
• Lutzke, L., Drummond, C., Slovic, P., & Árvai, J. (2019). Priming critical thinking: Simple interventions limit the influence of fake news about climate change on Facebook. Global Environmental Change, 58, 101964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101964
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macchi, L., & Bagassi, M. (2012). Intuitive and analytical processes in insight problem solving: A psycho-rhetorical approach to the study of reasoning. Mind & Society, 11(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-012-0103-3
   Google Scholar
• Macchi, L., & Bagassi, M. (2014). The interpretative heuristic in insight problem solving. Mind & Society, 13(1), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-014-0139-7
   Google Scholar
• Macchi, L., Cucchiarini, V., Caravona, L., & Bagassi, M. (2019). Insight problem solving and unconscious analytic thought. New lines of research. In Á. Nepomuceno-Fernández, L. Magnani, F. Salguero-Lamillar, C. Barés-Gómez, & M. Fontaine (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in science and technology. MBR 2018. Studies in applied philosophy, epistemology and rational ethics (Vol. 49). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32722-4_8
   Google Scholar
• Martel, C., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Reliance on emotion promotes belief in fake news. Cognitive Research: principles and Implications, 5(1), 1–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metcalfe, J. (1986). Feeling of knowing in memory and problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(2), 288–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.12.2.288
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novick, L. R., & Sherman, S. J. (2003). On the nature of insight solutions: Evidence from skill differences in anagram solution. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 56(2), 351–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980244000288
   Google Scholar
• Oh, Y., Chesebrough, C., Erickson, B., Zhang, F., & Kounios, J. (2020). An insight-related neural reward signal. NeuroImage, 214, 116757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116757
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohlsson, S. (1992). Information-processing explanations of insight and related phenomena. Advances in the Psychology of Thinking, 1, 1–44.
   Google Scholar
• Paulhus, D. L., Harms, P. D., Bruce, M. N., & Lysy, D. C. (2003). The over-claiming technique: Measuring self-enhancement independent of ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 890–904. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.890
   PubMed 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
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2017). The evolution of analytic thought?. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e215.
   Google Scholar
• Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(12), 1865–1880. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000465
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennycook, G., Epstein, Z., Mosleh, M., Arechar, A. A., Eckles, D., & Rand, D. G. (2021). Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature, 592(7855), 590–595. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03344-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019a). Cognitive reflection and the 2016 US Presidential election. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(2), 224–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218783192
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019b). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to Partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188(September 2017), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019c). Who falls for fake news? The roles of analytic thinking, motivated reasoning, political ideology, and bullshit receptivity. Journal of Personality, 88(2), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3023545
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, D. L., & Clancy, K. J. (1972). Some effects of “social desirability” in survey studies. American Journal of Sociology, 77(5), 921–940. https://doi.org/10.1086/225231
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postrel, A. (2006). Would you take a bird in the hand, or a 75% chance of two in the bush? The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/26/business/26scene.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1999). Measures of politicalattitudes (Vol. 2). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raoelison, M., Thompson, V. A., & De Neys, W. (2020). The smart intuitor: Cognitive capacity predicts intuitive rather than deliberate thinking. Cognition, 204, 104381. Epub 2020 Jul 1. PMID: 32622211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104381
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salvi, C., Markers of insight. (2021) Routledge International Handbook of Creative Cognition. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/73y5k, https://psyarxiv.com/73y5k
   Google Scholar
• Salvi, C., Beeman, M., Bikson, M., McKinley, R., & Grafman, J. (2020). TDCS to the right anterior temporal lobe facilitates insight problem-solving. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 946. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-57724-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salvi, C., & Bowden, E. M. (2016). Looking for creativity: Where do we look when we look for new ideas? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 22–33. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00161
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salvi, C., & Bowden, E. (2020). The relation between state and trait risk taking and problem-solving. Psychological Research, 84(5), 1235–1248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01152-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salvi, C., Bricolo, E., Franconeri, S., Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2015). Sudden insight is associated with shutting out visual inputs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(6), 1814–1819. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0845-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salvi, C., Bricolo, E., Kounios, J., Bowden, E., & Beeman, M. (2016). Insight solutions are correct more often than analytic solutions. Thinking & Reasoning, 22(4), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2016.1141798
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salvi, C., Costantini, G., Bricolo, E., Perugini, M., & Beeman, M. (2015). Validation of Italian rebus puzzles and compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0597-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salvi, C., Costantini, G., Pace, A., & Palmiero, M. (2020). Validation of the Italian remote associate test. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(1), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.345
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salvi, C., Iannello, P., Cancer, A., McClay, M., Rago, S., Dunsmoor, J. E., & Antonietti, A. (2021). Going viral: How fear, socio-cognitive polarization and problem-solving influence fake news detection and proliferation during COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Communication, 5(January), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.562588
   Google Scholar
• Salvi, C., Simoncini, C., Grafman, J., & Beeman, M. (2020). Oculometric signature of switch into awareness? Pupil size predicts sudden insight whereas microsaccades predict problem-solving via analysis. NeuroImage, 217, 116933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116933
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santarnecchi, E., Sprugnoli, G., Bricolo, E., Constantini, G., Liew, S. L., Musaeus, C. S., Salvi, C., Pascual-Leone, A., Rossi, A., & Rossi, S. (2019). Gamma tACS over the temporal lobe increases the occurrence of Eureka! moments. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42192-z
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schomaker, J., & Meeter, M. (2015). Short- and long-lasting consequences of novelty, deviance and surprise on brain and cognition. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 55, 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.05.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schooler, J. W., & Melcher, J. (1997). The ineffability of insight. The Creative Cognition Approach MIT, Cambridge (Mass.). 97–133.
   Google Scholar
• Schooler, J. W., Smallwood, J., Christoff, K., Handy, T. C., Reichle, E. D., & Sayette, M. a (2011). Meta-awareness, perceptual decoupling and the wandering mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(7), 319–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.05.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen, W., Tong, Y., Yuan, Y., Zhan, H., Liu, C., Luo, J., & Cai, H. (2018). Feeling the insight: Uncovering somatic markers of the “aha” experience. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 43(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-017-9381-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen, W., Yuan, Y., Liu, C., & Luo, J. (2016). In search of the ‘Aha! ’ experience: Elucidating the emotionality of insight problem-solving. British Journal of Psychology (London, England: 1953), 107(2), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12142
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen, W., Yuan, Y., Zhao, Y., Zhang, X., Liu, C., Luo, J., Li, J., & Fan, L. (2018). Defining insight: A study examining implicit theories of insight experience defining insight: A study examining implicit theories of insight experience. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(3), 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000138
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, R. W., & Kounios, J. (1996). Sudden insight: All-or none-processing revealed by speed-accuracy decomposition. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1443–1462.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, S., & Blankenship, S. E. (1991). Incubation and the persistence of fixation in problem solving. The American Journal of Psychology, 104(1), 61–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, S. M. (1996). Getting into and out of mental ruts: A theory of fixation, incubation, and insight. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The Nature of Insight (pp. 229–251). The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, S. M., & Blankenship, S. E. (1989). Incubation effects. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27(4), 311–314. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334612
   Google Scholar
• Sprugnoli, G., Rossi, S., Liew, S. L., Bricolo, E., Costantini, G., Salvi, C., … Santarnecchi, E. (2021). Enhancement of semantic integration reasoning by tRNS. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 21(4), 736–746.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterling, J., Jost, J. T., & Pennycook, G. (2016). Are neoliberals more susceptible to bullshit? Judgment and Decision Making, 11(4), 352–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storm, B. C., & Angello, G. (2010). Overcoming fixation. Psychological Science, 21(9), 1263–1265. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610379864
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Subramaniam, K., Kounios, J., Parrish, T. B., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2009). A brain mechanism for facilitation of insight by positive affect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(3), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21057
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomson, K. S., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2016). Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1), 99–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tik, M., Sladky, S., Luft, C., Willinger, D., Hoffmann, A., Banissy, M., Bhattacharya, J., & Windischberger, C. (2018). Ultra-high-field fMRI insights on insight: Neural correlates of the Aha!-moment. Human Brain Mapping, 39(8), 3241–3252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2014). Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.844729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Hiel, A., Onraet, E., Crowson, H. M., & Roets, A. (2016). The relationship between Right–wing attitudes and cognitive style: A comparison of self–report and behavioural measures of rigidity and intolerance of ambiguity. European Journal of Personality, 30(6), 523–531.
   Google Scholar
• van Prooijen, J. W., Krouwel, A. P. M., Boiten, M., & Eendebak, L. (2015). Fear among the extremes: How political ideology predicts negative emotions and outgroup derogation. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(4), 485–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215569706
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb, M. E., Little, D. R., & Cropper, S. J. (2018). Once more with feeling: Normative data for the aha experience in insight and noninsight problems. Behavior Research Methods, 50(5), 2035–2056. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0972-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zmigrod, L. (2020). The role of cognitive rigidity in political ideologies: Theory, evidence, and future directions. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.10.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zmigrod, L., Rentfrow, P. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2020). The partisan mind: Is extreme political partisanship related to cognitive inflexibility? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(3), 407–418. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar