Registered Report

Actively Open-Minded Thinking, Bullshit Receptivity, and Susceptibility to Framing

Evaluating the Dual-Process Account in North America and Bulgaria

Nikolay R. Rachev, Department of General, Experimental, Developmental, and Health Psychology, Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski, 15 Tsar Osvoboditel Blvd., 1504 Sofia, Bulgaria

[email protected]

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5654-2883

Department of General, Experimental, Developmental, and Health Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski, Sofia, Bulgaria

Search for more papers by this author

Sandra J. Geiger

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3262-5609

Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author

Jáchym Vintr

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7228-3287

Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Prague, Czechia

Search for more papers by this author

Desislava Kirilova

Department of General, Experimental, Developmental, and Health Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski, Sofia, Bulgaria

Search for more papers by this author

Anna Nabutovsky

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4155-0263

Department of Psychology, Department of Statistical Science, University of Toronto, ON, Canada

School of Law, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Search for more papers by this author

, and

Joakim Nelsson

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8305-6338

Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Uppsala University, Sweden

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:February 10, 2022https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000685

Abstract

Abstract. The framing effect occurs when different presentations of the same problem lead to predictably different preferences. The dual-process framework of higher cognition assumes that the effect violates rational principles, but alternative accounts and recent evidence have contested this interpretation. Contributing to this debate, we tested the dual-process assumption by investigating associations between susceptibility to framing and the willingness and ability to think in line with rational norms, conceptualized as actively open-minded thinking and pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity. We conducted two online studies among North American (N = 259) and Bulgarian (N = 248) university students and administered several framing problems within-subjects, presumably necessary for the associations to appear. Confirmatory factor analyses showed that susceptibility to framing was associated with decreased actively open-minded thinking and increased bullshit receptivity in both sites. Exploratory multi-group analyses demonstrated partial strong invariance and showed that the findings generalize across both sites in terms of direction and partially in terms of magnitude. These results broadly support the dual-process account of the framing effect. Our study further contributes to adapting existing measures to a novel setting and expanding the findings across borders and populations.

References

Aczel, B., Szollosi, A., & Bago, B. (2018). The effect of transparency on framing effects in within-subject designs. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2036 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Baron, J. (1991). Beliefs about thinking. In J. F. VossD. N. PerkinsJ. W. SegalEds., Informal reasoning and education (pp. 169–186). Erlbaum. First citation in article Google Scholar
Baron, J. (2008). Thinking and deciding (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press. First citation in article Google Scholar
Baron, J. (2019). Actively open-minded thinking in politics. Cognition, 188, 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.004 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Baron, J., & High, D. II (2019, November). People who endorse actively open-minded thinking (AOT) are sensitive to cues indicating AOT of sources. Poster presented at the Society for Judgment and Decision-Making Annual Meeting, Montréal, Canada. http://www.sjdm.org/presentations/2019-Poster-Baron-Jonathan-endorse-AOT-cues.pdf First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Baron, J., Scott, S., Fincher, K., & 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 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individual differences in adult decision-making competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 938–956. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.938 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Cieciuch, J., & Davidov, E. (2015). Establishing measurement invariance across online and offline samples: A tutorial with the software packages AMOS and Mplus. Studia Psychologica: Theoria et Praxis, 2(15), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.21697/sp.2015.14.2.06 First citation in article Google Scholar
Del Missier, F., Mäntylä, T., & Bruine de Bruin, W. (2012). Decision-making competence, executive functioning, and general cognitive abilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(4), 331–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.731 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
De Neys, W. (2018). Bias, conflict, and fast logic: Towards a hybrid dual process future? In W. De NeysEd., Dual process theory 2.0 (pp. 47–65). Routledge. First citation in article Google Scholar
De Neys, W., & Pennycook, G. (2019). Logic, fast and slow: Advances in dual-process theorizing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(5), 503–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419855658 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Fischer, R., & Karl, J. A. (2019). A primer to (cross-cultural) multi-group invariance testing possibilities in R. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article e1507. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01507 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Geiger, S. J., Rachev, N. R., Kirilova, D. K., Nelsson, J., Buehler, V., Vintr, J., & Nabutovsky, A. (2019). Actively open-minded thinking, bullshit receptivity, and susceptibility to framing: Evaluating the dual-process account in North America and Bulgaria. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HX8QT First citation in article Google Scholar
Geiger, S. J., Rachev, N. R., Kirilova, D. K., Nelsson, J., Buehler, V., Vintr, J., & Nabutovsky, A. (2020, September 24). Actively open-minded thinking, bullshit receptivity, and susceptibility to framing: Evaluating the dual-process account in North America and Bulgaria. Preregistration available at https://osf.io/y6vsg First citation in article Google Scholar
Greiff, S., & Allen, M. S. (2018). EJPA introduces Registered Reports as new submission format [Editorial]. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 34(4), 217–219. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000492 First citation in article Link, Google Scholar
Haran, U., Ritov, I., & Mellers, B. A. (2013). The role of actively open-minded thinking in information acquisition, accuracy, and calibration. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(3), 188–201. First citation in article Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., Rosseel, Y., Miller, P., Quick, C., Garnier-Villarreal, M., Selig, J., Boulton, A., Preacher, K., Coffman, D., Rhemtulla, M., Robitzsch, A., Enders, C., Arslan, R., Clinton, B., Panko, P., Merkle, E., … Mansolf, M. (2019). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling (Version 0.5-2) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools First citation in article Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Koo, M., & Skinner, H. (2005). Challenges of internet recruitment: A case study with disappointing results. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 7(1), Article e6. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7.1.e6 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Koran, J., & Jaffari, F. (2020). Deletion statistic accuracy in confirmatory factor models. Methodological Innovations, 13(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799120918349 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Korkmaz, S., Goksuluk, D., & Zararsiz, G. (2014). MVN: An R package for assessing multivariate normality. The R Journal, 6(2), 151–162. First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Kühberger, A., & Tanner, C. (2010). Risky choice framing: Task versions and a comparison of prospect theory and fuzzy-trace theory. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23(3), 314–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.656 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Lakens, D. (2017, May 11). How a power analysis implicitly reveals the smallest effect size you care about. The 20% Statistician. http://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2017/05/how-power-analysis-implicitly-reveals.html First citation in article Google Scholar
LeBoeuf, R. A., & Shafir, E. (2003). Deep thoughts and shallow frames: On the susceptibility to framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(2), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.433 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2804 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Mandel, D. R. (2014). Do framing effects reveal irrational choice? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 1185–1198. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034207 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Mandel, D. R., & Kapler, I. V. (2018). Cognitive style and frame susceptibility in decision-making. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article e1461. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01461 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Pastore, M., & Altoe, G. (2018). influence.SEM: Case influence in structural equation models (Version 2.2) [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/influence.SEM/index.html First citation in article 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. First citation in article Google Scholar
Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2015a). What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement. Cognitive Psychology, 80, 34–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.05.001 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2015b). Everyday consequences of analytic thinking. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 425–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415604610 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Rachev, N. R., & Petkova, M. (2019). How prone are Bulgarians to heuristics and biases? Implications for studying rationality across cultures. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 19(3–4), 322–342. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12340062 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Rachev, N. R., Pobornikova, G., Marinova, E., Beshkov, K., Benovska, A.-K., Tenev, D., Shomeva, M., Genev, E., & Peycheva, E. (2021). Bulgarian data for pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity and resistance to framing [Dataset]. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/RBB4KI First citation in article Google Scholar
Revelle, W. (2020). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. (Version 1.9.12.31) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych First citation in article Google Scholar
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02 First citation in article Google Scholar
Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. R. M. (2006). Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition, 101(3), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.11.001 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2016). The rationality quotient: Toward a test of rational thinking. MIT Press. First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2011). The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Memory & Cognition, 39(7), 1275–1289. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Turpin, M. H., Walker, A. C., Kara-Yakoubian, M., Gabert, N. N., Fugelsang, J. A., & Stolz, J. A. (2019). Bullshit makes the art grow profounder. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(6), 658–670. First citation in article Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59(4), S251–S278. https://doi.org/10.1086/296365 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Wang, Y. A., & Rhemtulla, M. (2020). Power analysis for parameter estimation in structural equation modeling: A discussion and tutorial. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pj67b First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
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(4), 930–941. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012842 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar
Westfall, J., & Yarkoni, T. (2016). Statistically controlling for confounding constructs is harder than you think. PLoS One, 11(3), Article e0152719. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152719 First citation in article Crossref, Google Scholar

Special Issue: Advancing the Reproducibility of Psychological Assessment Across Borders and Populations

Volume 38Issue 6November 2022

ISSN: 1015-5759eISSN: 2151-2426

History

ReceivedNovember 6, 2019
RevisedJuly 7, 2021
AcceptedAugust 1, 2021
Published onlineFebruary 10, 2022

Licenses & Copyright

Keywords

Acknowledgments:

This research was made possible thanks to the Junior Researcher Programme (JRP, http://jrp.pscholars.org/). We are grateful to everyone from the JRP team for their effort and support. We also thank Gordon Pennycook, Jonathan Baron, Wändi Bruine de Bruin, Andrew Parker, Baruch Fischhoff, Fabio Del Missier, and Irwin Levin for their helpful comments on the materials used in this study; David Mandel for sharing his co-authored dataset for the purpose of the power analysis; William Cunningham and the Social Cognition Lab at the University of Toronto for their resources; Sacha Epskamp, for his feedback on CFA; Student Councils and faculty at various Bulgarian universities, for their assistance in data collection; Laura Mtewele for her contribution in the early stages of the project; Vanessa Bühler, for her contribution to the Stage 1 manuscript; and Julia Kamburidis, Ekaterina Peycheva, and Evelina Marinova for their work on the Bulgarian translations of the materials.

Authorship:

Nikolay R. Rachev: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing (Original Draft, Review & Editing), Supervision, Project Administration, Funding Acquisition. Sandra J. Geiger: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing (Original draft, Review & Editing), Visualization, Project administration. Jáchym Vintr: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Validation, Writing (Review & Editing). Desislava Kirilova: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing (Review & Editing). Anna Nabutovsky: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Project Administration, Resources, Writing (Review & Editing). Joakim Nelsson: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing (Review & Editing).

Open Science:

Open Data: We confirm that there is sufficient information for an independent researcher to reproduce all of the reported results, including codebooks (Geiger et al., 2019).

Open Materials: We confirm that there is sufficient information for an independent researcher to reproduce all of the reported methodology (Geiger et al., 2019).

Preregistration of Studies and Analysis Plans: This study was preregistered with an analysis plan (Geiger et al., 2020).

PDF download

Funding:

This research was partially supported by grants from the Faculty of Philosophy at Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski and the University of Toronto.

Verify Phone

Congrats!

Actively Open-Minded Thinking, Bullshit Receptivity, and Susceptibility to Framing

Evaluating the Dual-Process Account in North America and Bulgaria

Abstract

References

History

Licenses & Copyright

Acknowledgments:

Support & Contact

Support & Contact

Legal information

Legal information

More offers

More offers

Our partners

Our partners

Change Password

Your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:

Password Changed Successfully

Create a new account

Request Username

Verify Phone

Congrats!

Actively Open-Minded Thinking, Bullshit Receptivity, and Susceptibility to Framing

Evaluating the Dual-Process Account in North America and Bulgaria

Abstract

References

History

Licenses & Copyright

Acknowledgments:

Support & Contact

Support & Contact

Legal information

Legal information

More offers

More offers

Our partners

Our partners