Distrust and the positive test heuristic: Dispositional and situated social distrust improves performance on the Wason Rule Discovery Task.
Abstract
Feelings of distrust alert people not to take information at face value, which may influence their reasoning strategy. Using the Wason (1960) rule identification task, we tested whether chronic and temporary distrust increase the use of negative hypothesis testing strategies suited to falsify one's own initial hunch. In Study 1, participants who were low in dispositional trust were more likely to engage in negative hypothesis testing than participants high in dispositional trust. In Study 2, trust and distrust were induced through an alleged person-memory task. Paralleling the effects of chronic distrust, participants exposed to a single distrust-eliciting face were 3 times as likely to engage in negative hypothesis testing as participants exposed to a trust-eliciting face. In both studies, distrust increased negative hypothesis testing, which was associated with better performance on the Wason task. In contrast, participants' initial rule generation was not consistently affected by distrust. These findings provide first evidence that distrust can influence which reasoning strategy people adopt.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Disrupting fluency in information processing or priming subjects for distrust reduces confirmation bias.
“For there is evidence that, for instance, disrupting the fluency in information processing (Hernandez and Preston 2013) or priming subjects for distrust (Mayo et al. 2014) reduces the bias.”
From What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? (2022) · cites this paper as Mayo et al. 2014
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 29 · Cited by 43
- Authors
- Mayo, R., Alfasi, D., & Schwarz, N.
- Affiliations
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
- University of Michigan (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
- Published
- 2014-06
- Volume
- 143
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 985-990
- ISSN
- 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2222
- OpenAlex
- W2320606554
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5
- FWCI
- 1.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Israel Science Foundation (ISF 594/12)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Keywords
- distrust, Wason selection task, rule discovery, dispositional trust, situational trust, reasoning strategies, rule generation
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Humans, Logic, Random Allocation, Social Perception, Thinking, Trust, Young Adult
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