CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 128Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationSocial and Intergroup Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bayesian or biased? Analytic thinking and political belief updating

Open access
Tappin, Ben M., Pennycook, Gordon, Rand, David G.·2020·Cognition
DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104375
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A surprising finding from U.S. opinion surveys is that political disagreements tend to be greatest among the most cognitively sophisticated opposing partisans. Recent experiments suggest a hypothesis that could explain this pattern: cognitive sophistication magnifies politically biased processing of new information. However, the designs of these experiments tend to contain several limitations that complicate their support for this hypothesis. In particular, they tend to (i) focus on people's worldviews and political identities, at the expense of their other, more specific prior beliefs, (ii) lack direct comparison with a politically unbiased benchmark, and (iii) focus on people's judgments of new information, rather than on their posterior beliefs following exposure to the information. We report two studies designed to address these limitations. In our design, U.S. subjects received noisy but informative signals about the truth or falsity of partisan political questions, and we measured their prior and posterior beliefs, and cognitive sophistication, operationalized as analytic thinking inferred via performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test. We compared subjects' posterior beliefs to an unbiased Bayesian benchmark. We found little evidence that analytic thinking magnified politically biased deviations from the benchmark. In contrast, we found consistent evidence that greater analytic thinking was associated with posterior beliefs closer to the benchmark. Together, these results are inconsistent with the hypothesis that cognitive sophistication magnifies politically biased processing. We discuss differences between our design and prior work that can inform future tests of this hypothesis.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104375

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 70 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Leeper, T. J., Arnold, J., & Arel-Bundock, V. (2018). Marginal Effects for Model Objects (margins). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/margins/margins.pdf. · DOI
  2. Pew Research Center. (2019, January 24). Public's 2019 Priorities: Economy, Health Care, Education and Security All Near Top of List | Pew Research Center. https://www.people-press.org/2019/01/24/publics-2019-priorities-economy-health-care-education-and-security-all-near-top-of-list/.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–128 of 128

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Tappin, B. M., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • University of Regina (CA)
Corresponding author
Tappin, Ben M.
ORCID
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-11
Volume
204
Pages
104375
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104375
OpenAlex
W3034853018
Cited by
127
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 4
FWCI
11.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • John Templeton Foundation (61061)
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/J500148/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
analytical thinking, cognitive sophistication, Bayesian updating, cognitive reflection, prior beliefs, posterior beliefs, noisy signals, political bias, partisanship
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Humans, Judgment, Neuropsychological Tests, Thinking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review