Belief in Pseudoscience, Cognitive Style and Science Literacy

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 552-559

  Majima, Yoshimasa ^a  

^a HOKUSEI GAKUEN UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COGNITION; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTUITION; JAPANESE (PEOPLE); MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSEUDOSCIENCE; SCIENCE; SCIENCE LITERACY; SEX DIFFERENCE; SOCIAL BELIEF; SUPERSTITION; THINKING;

EID: 84947494383     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.3136     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Aarnio, K., & Lindeman, M. (2005). Paranormal beliefs, education, and thinking styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1227-1236. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.04.009
2. Blackmore, S. (1992). Psychic experiences: Psychic illusions. Skeptical Inquirer, 16, 367-376.
3. Blackmore, S., & Trościanko, T. (1985). Belief in the paranormal: Probability judgements, illusory control, and the 'chance baseline shift'. British Journal of Psychology, 76, 459-468. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1985.tb01969.x
4. Bressan, P. (2002). The connection between random sequences, everyday coincidences, and belief in the paranormal. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 17-34. doi: 10.1002/acp.754
5. Brugger, P., Regard, M., & Landis, T. (1991). Belief in extrasensory perception and illusory control: A replication. Journal of Psychology, 125, 501-502. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1991.10543314
6. Carroll, R. T. (2003). The Skeptic's dictionary: A collection of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delusions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
7. Dagnall, N., Parker, A., & Munley, G. (2007). Paranormal belief and reasoning. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1406-1415. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.017
8. De Neys, W. (2006). Dual processing in reasoning. Psychological Science, 17, 428-433. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01723.x
9. Elqayam, S., & Over, D. (2012). Probabilities, beliefs, and dual processing: The paradigm shift in the psychology of reasoning. Mind & Society, 11, 27-40. doi: 10.1007/s11299-012-0102-4
10. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.49.8.709
11. Evans, J. St. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255-278. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
12. Evans, J. St. B. T., Barston, J. L., & Pollard, P. (1983). On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 11, 295-306. doi: 10.3758/BF03196976
13. Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Hove UK: Psychology Press.
14. Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46, 107-119. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.46.2.107
15. Gilbert, D. T., Krull, D. S., & Malone, P. S. (1990). Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 601-613. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.601
16. Gray, T., & Mill, D. (1990). Critical abilities, graduate education (Biology vs. English), and belief in unsubstantiated phenomena. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 22, 162-172. doi: 10.1037/h0078899
17. Hines, T. (1988). Pseudoscience and the paranormal: A critical examination of the evidence. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
18. Kelemen, D., Rottman, J., & Seston, R. (2013). Professional physical scientists display tenacious teleological tendencies: Purpose-based reasoning as a cognitive default. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 1074-1083. doi: 10.1037/a0030399
19. Klaczynski, P. A., Gordon, D. H., & Fauth, J. (1997). Goal-oriented critical reasoning and individual differences in critical reasoning biases. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 470-485. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.470
20. Klaczynski, P. A., & Lavallee, K. L. (2005). Domain-specific identity, epistemic regulation, and intellectual ability as predictors of belief-biased reasoning: A dual-process perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92, 1-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2005.05.001
21. Kokis, J. V., Macpherson, R., Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2002). Heuristic and analytic processing: Age trends and associations with cognitive ability and cognitive styles. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83, 26-52. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0965(02)00121-2
22. Koshiro, E., Sakata, H., & Kawakami, M. (2008). Fushigi genshou ni taisuru taido: Taido kouzou no bunseki oyobi ruikeika. [Attitudes towards paranormal phenomena: Structural analysis and categorization of attitudes]. Japanese Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 246-258.
23. Lindeman, M., & Aarnio, K. (2006). Paranormal beliefs: Their dimensionality and correlates. European Journal of Personality, 20, 585-602. doi: 10.1002/per.608
24. Macpherson, R., & Stanovich, K. E. (2007). Cognitive ability, thinking dispositions, and instructional set as predictors of critical thinking. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 115-127. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.05.003
25. Markovits, H., & Nantel, G. (1989). The belief-bias effect in the production and evaluation of logical conclusions. Memory & Cognition, 17, 11-17. doi: 10.3758/BF03199552
26. McClenon, J. (1993). Surveys of anomalous experience in Chinese, Japanese and American samples. Sociology of Religion, 54, 295-302. doi: 10.2307/3711723
27. Naito, M., Suzuki, K., & Sakamoto, A. (2004). Jouhou shori sutairu (gourisei-chokkansei) shakudo no sakusei. [Development of rational and intuitive information-processing style inventory]. The Japanese Journal of Personality, 13, 67-78. doi: 10.2132/personality.13.67
28. Nakamura, N. (2008). Wagakuni no daitai iryou no genjou to sono shijou kibo. [The present condition and its market size of the alternative medicine of our country]. The Social Science Review 124, 69-91. Retrieved Dec. 22, 2014, from http://sucra.saitama-u.ac.jp/modules/xoonips/download.php/KY-AN00109186-24.pdf?file_id=2941
29. National Center for Science Education. (2008). Creationism and law. Retrieved Aug. 8, 2014, from http://ncse.com/legal
30. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
31. National Science Foundation. (2001). Survey of public attitudes toward and understanding of science and technology. Retrieved Aug. 12, 2014, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvyattitude/
32. Newport, F., & Strausberg, M. (2001). Americans' belief in psychic and paranormal phenomena is up over last decade. Gallup News Service, 14.
33. Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently-and why. New York: Free Press.
34. Nisbett, R. E., Choi, I., Peng, K., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291-310. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291
35. Norenzayan, A., Smith, E. E., Kim, B. J., & Nisbett, R. E. (2002). Cultural preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning. Cognitive Science, 26, 653-684.
36. Okamoto, S., Niwa, F., Shimizu, K., & Sugiman, T. (2001). The 2001 survey for public attitudes towards and understanding of science & technology in Japan. NISTEP Report (Vol. 72). Tokyo: National Institute of Science and Technology Policy.
37. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow's world. Paris: OECD Publishing.
38. Otis, L. P., & Alcock, J. E. (1982). Factors affecting extraordinary belief. The Journal of Social Psychology, 118, 77-85. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1982.9924420
39. Otis, L. P., & Kuo, E. C. Y. (1984). Extraordinary beliefs among students in Singapore and Canada. Journal of Psychology, 116, 215-226. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1984.9923639
40. Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 972-987. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.972
41. Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. Americal Psychologist, 54, 741-754. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.9.741
42. Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Seli, P., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2012). Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition, 123, 335-346. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.003
43. Roberts, M. J., & Seager, P. B. (1999). Predicting belief in paranormal phenomena: A comparison of conditional and probabilistic reasoning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 443-450. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199910)13:5<443::AID-ACP592>3.0.CO;2-K
44. Rogers, P., Davis, T., & Fisk, J. (2009). Paranormal belief and susceptibility to the conjunction fallacy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 524-542. doi: 10.1002/acp.1472
45. Shermer, M. (1997). Why people believe weird things: Pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
46. Singh, S., & Ernst, E. (2008). Trick or treatment?: Alternative medicine on trial. London: Bantam Press.
47. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3-22. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3
48. Stark, R., Hamberg, E., & Miller, A. S. (2005). Exploring spirituality and unchurched religions in America, Sweden, and Japan. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 20, 3-23. doi: 10.1080/1353790052000313882
49. 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, 930-941. doi: 10.1037/a0012842
50. Wiseman, R., & Watt, C. (2006). Belief in psychic ability and the misattribution hypothesis: A qualitative review. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 323-338. doi: 10.1348/000712605X72523
51. Wolfradt, U., Oubaid, V., Straube, E. R., Bischoff, N., & Mischo, J. (1999). Thinking styles, schizotypal traits and anomalous experiences. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 821-830. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00031-8