VEGA 2/0085/17

Results 2018

After pilot studies form the last year we focused on the addressing the main aims of the project: (1) identifying the limitations from the aspect of information (mainly related to formulation of the information); (2) identifying moderators and individual differences in rational thinking, judgment and decision making, and (3) pilot testing of interventions and methods aimed at debiasing.

(1) Effect of formulation of information

Effect of formulation of information on reasoning about health

Previous research has shown that the way the information is formulated can have different effect on information processing and risk assessment. In one study we tested two contradictory claims about how the time frame of numerical data influences perception of health risks. The results showed that neither time frame, nor word order or their interaction affected perception of health threats. However, risk evaluation was strongly dependent on the severity of the cause of death which was presented as the first one. Thus, it is important to take into account the anchoring heuristic in the process of repeated assessment of a certain category of risks (Kostovičová, 2018).

Within this goal we also focused on how physicians can communicate information in a way to enhance the motivation of patients to accept and follow the medical advice. The previous research has shown that physicians can motivate their patients more effectively in their councils when they use the tactics of the charismatic leadership. One of the tactics is storytelling, where the main character is the role model who solves a problem. Who should be the main character of a story? Physician him/herself, another similar patient or anonymous persons? We found that own stories were more convicting than stories of people generally. The least convincing were stories of some other patient (Kénesy Túnyiová, 2017).

We also examined the acceptance of health-related information from the perspective of parents and we chose the topic of vaccination, as the number of vaccination refusals is growing. The aim of this study is to investigate the issues and heuristics that play a role in parental decision-making on children’s vaccinations. First-time mothers often reported being under pressure to make vaccination decisions within the stressful context of new-born check-ups. Under such conditions decision making is often subject to biases and driven by fear. Parents attempt to balance the potential risks of having their child vaccinated or not. Trust is another theme that tends to surface repeatedly in a system incapable of adequately dealing with questions related to vaccination safety. Parents require assistance when deciding whether to vaccinate their child, especially in the form of clear, concise, balanced and empathetic discussion with paediatricians (Hatoková, Masaryk, & Kénesy Túnyiová, 2018).

Effect of formulation on acceptance of bullshit

In this study we were interested whether the most defining feature of bullshit is its obscuring form or content unconcerned with the truth. Contrary to our expectations, the results showed that people judged too obscure untruthful statements as more unlikable, instead they preferred simpler untruthful statements (Jurkovič, Čavojová, & Brezina, 2018).

(2) Individual differences and predictors of rational thinking and information processing

One of the most robust mental shortcuts in the processing of information is confirmation bias or myside bias. People prefer, search for, interpret and recall information in a way that is corresponding to their prior beliefs, assumptions and opinions. The study explores whether people are more inclined to accept a conclusion that confirms their prior beliefs and reject one they personally object to even when both follow the same logic. We applied a formal reasoning paradigm to distinguish between cognitive and motivational mechanisms leading to myside bias in reasoning on value-laden topics (in this case abortions). Slovak and Polish (N = 387) participants indicated their attitudes toward abortion and then evaluated logical syllogisms with neutral, pro-choice, or pro-life content. We analysed whether participants’ prior attitudes influenced their ability to solve these logically identical reasoning tasks and found that prior attitudes were the strongest predictor of myside bias in evaluating both valid and invalid syllogisms, even after controlling for logical ability (the ability to solve neutral syllogisms) and previous experience (Čavojová, Šrol, Adamus, 2018; Čavojová, 2018).

Cognitive errors and thus also less rational decisions can arise during information processing either because person does not detect conflict between intuitive and deliberative response, or because person does detect conflict, but fails to inhibit intuitive response due to lack of cognitive abilities or necessary knowledge (mindware). What individual factors play role in detecting the conflict is still a relatively unexplored research topic. Previous studies has found that highly cognitively able people do not show the signs of beliefs inhibition when solving conflict syllogisms; this can suggest that they use different (better) cognitive strategy than the less successful participants. Moreover, our results showed that although cognitively able people are, indeed, better than less cognitively able participants in solving conflict syllogisms, they do show signs of belief inhibition, so they do not seem to use different strategy, but probably can inhibit conflict more effectively (Šrol, 2018).

We also examined role of scientific reasoning in risk perception related to climate change (Bašnková & Kostovičová, 2018) and intentions toward minorities (Petrík & Kostovičová, 2018). Our results suggest that knowledge is the single most important predictor of both perceived risks and the subjective level of fear associated with climate change. Those with higher levels of scientific reasoning are more willing to take steps towards restricting their comfort, e.g. limiting their energy usage (Bašnáková & Kostovičová, 2018). In case of intentions toward minorities we found that higher scores in open-minded thinking, cognitive reflection and scientific reasoning positively predict recognition of minority rights, support for state interventions, and personal contribution to well-being of minorities (Petrík & Kostovičová, 2018).

We also examined relationships between personality variables and overestimation, which is one of the most prevalent cognitive errors. Our results suggest that more neurotic participants tended to estimate that their performance was better relative to others in comparison with less neurotic people. We also found that relationship between dispositional optimism and overplacement was shown only in the most competent participants (Krause & Čavojová, 2018).

(3) Interventions and debiasing

One of the aims of the project is not only exploring the systematic errors people make in judgment and decision making, but also suggesting concrete steps how to prevent these errors (i.e. debiasing), especially by means of more effective formulation of information from the side of scientists and experts. One of the pilot studies examined influence of contrafactual thinking on the escalation of engagement in the situation of sunk costs. We examined effect of various contradfactuals (Kf) (contrafactuals downward and upward) on experiencing regret. We found that: (1) Kf upward lead to lower escalation of engagement in the two situations of sunk costs; (2) it is important to distinguish the context of a situation and kind of sunk costs (invested time/ money/ physical or sychic effort, etc.). Results also highlighted the necessity of deeper scrutiny of contrafactual thinking in relation to various emotional states (Strachanová & Grežo, 2018).

Our papers published in 2018:

1. Bašnáková, J. & Kostovičová, L. (2018). Cognitive predictors of climate change related risk assessment. In Č. Šašinka, A. Strnadová, Z. Šmideková, V. Juřík (Eds.), Kognice a umělý život 2018. Sborník příspěvků. - Brno : Flow, z.s., 2018, s. 7-8. ISBN 978-80-88123-24-8. Typ: AFC

2. Brezina, I., Čavojová,V. & Jurkovič, M. (2108). Skúmanie dvoch komponentov bullshitu: (ne)pravdivosť a obskúrnosť [Examing two components of bullshit: (un)truthfulness and obscureness]. In Sociální procesy a osobnost 2017 : Sborník příspěvků mezinárodní konference. Editoři: Marek Blatný, Martin Jelínek, Petr Květon, Dalibor Vobořil. Brno : Psychologický ústav AV ČR, v.v.i, 2018, s. 38-42. ISBN 978-80-86174-22-8.

3. Čavojová, V. (2018). When Beliefs and Logic Contradict: Issues of Values, Religion and Culture. In Advances in Culturally-Aware Intelligent Systems and in Cross-Cultural Psychological Studies. Intelligent Systems Reference Library 134. - Paris : Springer International Publishing, 2018, p. 367-390. ISBN 978-3-319-67022-5. Typ: ABC

4. Čavojová, V., Šrol, J., & Adamus, M. (2018). My point is valid, yours is not: myside bias in reasoning about abortion. In Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2018, vol. 30, iss. 7, p. 656-669. (1.378 - IF2017). ISSN 2044-5911. Typ: ADCA

5. Hatoková, M., Masaryk, R. & Kénesy Túnyiová, M. (2018). How Slovak mothers view child vaccination: Focus group analysis. In Československá psychologie, 2018, roč. 62, č. 2, s. 101-118. (0.193 - IF2017). ISSN 0009-062X. Typ: ADCA

6. Jurkovič, M., Čavojová, V. & Brezina, I. (2018). Looking for the most defning feature of bullshit: obscureness vs. untruthfulness. In Č. Šašinka, A. Strnadová, Z. Šmideková, V. Juřík (Eds.), Kognice a umělý život 2018. Sborník příspěvků. Brno : Flow, z.s., 2018, s. 33-34. ISBN 978-80-88123-24-8. Typ: AFC (1/2 VEGA)

7. Kénesy Túnyiová, M. (2018). Vzdialenosť hlavného hrdinu v príbehu a jej vplyv na presvedčivosť argumentu. In PSYCHOLOGICA XLVII. - Bratislava : STIMUL, 2018, s. 57-64. ISBN 978-80-8127-219-6. Typ: AEDA

8. Kostovičová, L. (2018). Anchoring and time frame effects in assessment of health risks. In M. Blatný, M. Jelínek, P. Květon, & D. Vobořil (Eds.), Sociální procesy a osobnost 2017: Sborník příspěvků mezinárodní konference (pp. 175–180). Brno: Psychologický ústav AV ČR, v.v.i.

9. Krause, R. & Čavojová, V. (2018). Vzťah efektu nadmernej sebadôvery a osobnostných premenných. In Č. Šašinka, A. Strnadová, Z. Šmideková, V. Juřík (Eds.), Kognice a umělý život 2018. Sborník příspěvků. - Brno : Flow, z.s., 2018, s. 40-41. ISBN 978-80-88123-24-8. Typ: AFC

10. Petrík, J. & Kostovičová, L. (2018). Inside the mind of egalitarians: Cognitive predictors of behavioral intentions and attitudes toward minorities. In Č. Šašinka, A. Strnadová, Z. Šmideková, V. Juřík (Eds.), Kognice a umělý život 2018. Sborník příspěvků. - Brno : Flow, z.s., 2018, s. 55-56. ISBN 978-80-88123-24-8. Typ: AFC

11. Strachanová, D. & Grežo, M. (2018). Keby som sa rozhodol inak: kontrafaktové myslenie a efekt utopených nákladov v rozhodovaní. In PhD existence 2018 "Nekonečno v psychologii" : Sborník příspěvků. Editori: Eva Maierová, Lucie Viktorová, Jaroslava Suchá, Martin Dolejš ; - Olomouc : Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2018, s. 97-103. ISBN 978-80-244-5339-2. Typ: AFC (VEGA ½)

12. Šrol, J. (2018). Individuálne rozdiely v inhibícii presvedčení pri sylogistickom usudzovaní [Individual differences in belief inhibition during syllogistic reasoning]. In Československá psychologie, 2018, roč. LXII, č. 1, s. 1-15. (0.193 - IF2017). ISSN 0009-062X. Typ: ADCA

Results 2017

In the first year of the project we had three main goals: (1) to test the degree of scientific literacy and verify the relationship to the acceptance of scientific and pseudoscientific statements, (2) to identify and select variables affecting the understanding and acceptance of information (when we make decisions on a personally relevant topic), specifically in the area of risk and probability assessment, and (3) to identify how information is phrased that increases a listener’s attention, interest and their motivation. Beside these goals we also focused on (4) which variables affect acceptance of irrational beliefs or nonsense statements (so called bullhist).

(1) Scientific literacy

We realized three pilot studies to identify scientific literacy and to modify the existing measure (Drummond & Fischoff, 2015) on the three different samples: scientist from Slovak Academy of Sciences, high-school teachers and general public. In the first study we added to 11 original scenarios testing basic concepts of scientific methodology 23 new scenarios to verify, which concepts and scenarios are considered as most unambiguous based on their content and formulation; we also verified the unanimity in the scientific community from different fields regarding the correct answers. It resulted in selection of 7 basic concepts: double blind, causality, confounding variable, construct validity, control group, ecological validity, and randomization. In the sample of high school teachers (pilot study 2) we found out that new scenarios are easier for participants and they also have better psychometric properties. Therefore, we created new instrument, which consists of 7 modified scanarios testing the basic scientific concepts in concrete form ad 7 scenarios testing the same constructs in abstract form. The instrument is currently being analysed (pilot study 3).

(2) Risk and probability assessment

According to the cultural theory of risk, people’s cultural worldviews can bias the evaluation of risks and benefits, even after reading balanced arguments on a given topic. This assumption was tested on two controversial domains, which were relatively novel for the chosen population: nanoscience and HPV vaccination. Participants evaluated respective risks and benefits, either without or after reading balanced arguments. Contrary to earlier findings, positive perception of nanoscience was associated with egalitarianism. Worldviews of the pro- and con advocate of nanoscience influenced risk perception among people with little prior knowledge. Assessment of risks inherent to HPV vaccination was positively associated with hierarchism among men, negatively with familiarity among women, and sensitive to the worldviews of the advocates. We provide a discussion on how evaluation of risks and benefits in novel domains is affected by a complex interplay of cultural cognition, domain familiarity, personal relevance and general risk attitudes (Kostovičová, Bašnáková & Bačová, 2017).

(3) Formulation of expert/scientific information

We focused on how physicians can communicate information in a way to enhance the motivation of patients to accept and follow the medical advice. The previous research has shown that physicians can motivate their patients more effectively in their councils when they use the tactics of the charismatic leadership. One of the tactics is storytelling, where the main character is the role model who solves a problem. Who should be the main character of a story? Physician him/herself, another similar patient or anonymous persons? We have prepared pairs of arguments consisted of one- or two-sentences. The arguments had the structure of a story: the person (me the physician/one of my patients/people) - the activity (doing/doing the opposite) - the effect (no/effect). Participants evaluated which argument is more convincing, or whether they are both convincing similarly. We found that own stories were more convicting than stories of people generally. The least convincing were stories of some other patient. We also created 3 short stories with twisted drinking and salt intake information. In every story was a different main character (me the physician/one of my patients/people). The same participants assessed the extent to which each story was able to raise interest, was convincing, motivated to adhere to the advice. We also found that own story was more convicting than general stories and the other patent´s story was least convincing (Kénesy Túnyiová, 2017).

Within this goal we also reviewed the literature regarding how the experts (scientists) themselves can fall prey to some of the cognitive biases they study. We focused on the confirmation bias, which severely affects our ability to test hypotheses, looking for evidence and evaluating contradictory findings. Our reasoning can be biased in favour of our own personal goals, which are not necessarily in accordance with correct decision making. Therefore, one of the outputs of the first year of the project is highlighting the potential biases in scientific thinking, especially with regards to current issues that challenge psychological science today, such as low replicability of psychological research or high prevalence of using “questionable research practices” (Šrol, 2017).

(4) Irrationality and bullshit

We examined relationship between preferred intuitive style and irrational beliefs, such as beliefs in paranormal (astrology, ESP, witchcraft), alternative treatment, conspiracies and paranoid ideation. Results showed positive correlation between preference of intuitive style and all scales of irrational beliefs, however, also preference of rational style slightly correlated with belief in conspiracy theories. In contrast, people with higher need of rational integration endorsed less paranormal beliefs. Cognitive reflection test did not correlate with irrational beliefs at all. Our results highlight the importance of enhancing the motivation of people to think about the problems more deeply (Čavojová & Jurkovič, 2017).

To examine how people process information we focused on how people evaluate truthfulness, impressiveness and believability of information. With the era of social media the occurrence of uncritical spreading of unverified, untruthful or pseudo-profound information increases, and these were recently labelled as “bullshit”. Therefore, we focused on more thorough theoretical conceptualization of bullshit. Our aim is to verify the two major components of bullshit: (un)truthfulness and obscureness; and eventually create a new scale, which would enable us to investigate obscure bullshit independently from value orientation and spiritual context („pseudo-profound bullshit“). Preliminary results show that the most attractive aspect of bullshit s not its obscure language, but rather vagueness and metaphoric-like quality, which induce impression of deeper meaning than is actually true. The more simply is statement formulated, the easier it is for participants to evaluate its truthfulness; too complicated statements tended to induce rejection (Brezina, Čavojová, & Jurkovič, 2017).

Our papers published in 2017:

1. Brezina, I., Čavojová, V. & Jurkovič, M. (2017). Skúmanie dvoch komponentov bullshitu: (ne)pravdivosť a obskúrnosť. In Sociální procesy a osobnost. Brno 2017 : Sborník abstrakt. - Brno : Psychologický ústav AV ČR, 2017. - S. 10. Typ: AFG

2. Čavojová, V & Jurkovič, M. (2017). Intuícia a iracionálne presvedčenia. In Sociálne procesy a osobnosť 2016. Zborník príspevkov / Editor: Lukáš Pitel ; Recenzenti: K. Bartošová, J. Bašnáková, M. Blatný, I. Burešová a ďalší. - Bratislava : ÚEP CSPV SAV, 2017. - ISBN 978-80-88910-55-8. - S. 77-83. Typ: AFD

3. Čavojová, V. & Šrol, J. (2017). How attitudes toward highly controversial topics shape our thinking: A comparison of Slovak and Polish sample in reasoning about abortions / Vladimíra Čavojová, Jakub Šrol. In Thurgau Experimental Economics Meeting: Book of Abstracts. - Kreuzlingen : Thurgau Institute of Economics at the University of Konstanz, 2017. - S. 21. Typ: AFG

4. Kenyesi Túnyiová, M. (2017). Vzdialenosť hlavného hrdinu v príbehu a jej vplyv na presvedčivosť argumentu. In Osobnosť v kontexte kognícií, emócií, motivácie. Bratislava 2017: Zborník abstraktov. – Bratislava: Filozofická Fakulta UK. Typ: AFH

5. Kostovičová, L. (2017). Efekty ukotvenia a časového rámca v hodnotení zdravotných rizík. In Sociální procesy a osobnost. Brno 2017 : Sborník abstrakt. - Brno : Psychologický ústav AV ČR, 2017. - S. 11. Typ: AFG

6. Kostovičová, L., Bašnáková, J., & Bačová, V. (2017). Predicting perception of risks and benefits within novel domains. Studia Psychologica, 59(3), 176–192. Typ: ADDA

7. Krause, R. (2017). Efekt nadmernej sebadôvery vo vzťahu k preferencii kognitívneho štýlu v rozhodovacom procese manažérov. In Sociální procesy a osobnost. Brno 2017 : Sborník abstrakt. - Brno : Psychologický ústav AV ČR, 2017, s. 19. Typ: AFG

8. Šrol, J. (2017). Bariéry (nielen) psychologickej vedy: Kognitívne odchýlky vo vedeckom myslení. In Kognícia a umelý život 2017 / Igor Farkaš, Martin Tkáč, Ján Rybár, Peter Gergeľ. - Bratislava : Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, 2017. - ISBN 978-80-223-4346-6. - S. 149-154. Typ: AFD