We examined whether scientific reasoning is associated with health-related beliefs and behaviors over and above general analytic thinking ability in the general public (N = 783, aged 18–84). Health-related beliefs included: anti-vaccination attitudes, COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, and generic health-related epistemically suspect beliefs. Scientific reasoning correlated with generic pseudoscientific and health-related conspiracy beliefs and COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs. Crucially, scientific reasoning was a stronger independent predictor of unfounded beliefs (including anti-vaccination attitudes) than general analytic thinking was; however, it had a more modest role in health-related behaviors.
BašnákováJČavojováVŠrolJ (n.d.) Does concrete content help people to reason scientifically? Adaptation of Scientific reasoning scale. Manuscript under review. Science & Education.
2.
BaumannSGaertnerBSchnuererI, et al. (2015) Belief incongruence and the intention-behavior gap in persons with at-risk alcohol use. Addictive Behaviors48: 5–11.
3.
BoströmHRössnerS (1990) Quality of alternative medicine – Complications and avoidable deaths. Quality Assurance in Health Care: The Official Journal of the International Society for Quality Assurance in Health Care2(2): 111–117.
4.
ČavojováVErsoyS (2020) The role of scientific reasoning and religious beliefs in use of complementary and alternative medicine. Journal of Public Health42(3): e239–e248.
5.
ČavojováVŠrolJAdamusM (2018) My point is valid, yours is not: Myside bias in reasoning about abortion. Journal of Cognitive Psychology30(7): 656–669.
6.
ČavojováVŠrolJJurkovičM (2020) Why should we try to think like scientists? The role of scientific reasoning in susceptibility to epistemically suspect beliefs and cognitive biases. Applied Cognitive Psychology34(1): 85–95.
7.
Cobb LeonardKScott-JonesD (2010) A belief-behavior gap? Exploring religiosity and sexual activity among high school seniors. Journal of Adolescent Research25(4): 578–600.
8.
DieckmannNFJohnsonBB (2019) Why do scientists disagree? Explaining and improving measures of the perceived causes of scientific disputes. PLoS One14(2): e0211269.
9.
DrummondCFischhoffB (2017a) Development and validation of the Scientific Reasoning Scale. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making30(1): 26–38.
10.
DrummondCFischhoffB (2017b) Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114(36): 9587–9592.
11.
DrummondCFischhoffB (2019) Does “putting on your thinking cap” reduce myside bias in evaluation of scientific evidence?Thinking and Reasoning25(4): 477–505.
12.
EpsteinSPaciniRDenes-RajV, et al. (1996) Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology71(2): 390–405.
13.
FarringtonRMusgraveINashC, et al. (2018) Potential forensic issues in overseas travellers exposed to local herbal products. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine60: 1–2.
14.
FrederickS (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives19(4): 25–42.
15.
GrimmerMRWhiteKD (1992) Nonconventional beliefs among australian science and nonscience students. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied126(5): 521–528.
16.
HeinzenTELilienfeldSONolanSA (2015) Horse That Won’t Go Away. New York: Worth Publishers.
17.
JahodaG (1968) Scientific training and the persistence of traditional beliefs among West African University students. Nature220: 1356.
18.
JohnsonRM (2003) Is knowledge of science associated with higher skepticism of pseudoscientific claims?University of Tennessee Honors Thesis Projects. Available at: http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj
19.
KahnemanD (2011) Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
20.
KaygısızGMGürkanB (2018) Adaptation of scientific reasoning scale into Turkish and examination of its psychometric properties. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice18(3): 737–757.
21.
KlaczynskiPA (2000) Motivated scientific reasoning biases, epistemological beliefs, and theory polarization: A two-process approach to adolescent cognition. Child Development71(5): 1347–1366.
22.
KlaczynskiPA (2014) Heuristics and biases: Interactions among numeracy, ability, and reflectiveness predict normative responding. Frontiers in Psychology5: 1–13.
23.
LindemanMKeskivaaraPRoschierM. (2000) Assessment of magical beliefs about food and health. Journal of Health Psychology5(2): 195–209.
24.
LobatoEMendozaJSimsV, et al. (2014) Examining the relationship between conspiracy theories, paranormal beliefs, and pseudoscience acceptance among a university population. Applied Cognitive Psychology28(5): 617–625.
25.
NeterEBraininE (2019) Association between health literacy, eHealth literacy, and health outcomes among patients with long-term conditions: A systematic review. European Psychologist24(1): 68–81.
26.
PasachoffJMCohenRJPasachoffNW (1970) Belief in the supernatural among harvard and west african university students. Nature227(5261): 971–972.
27.
PennycookGCheyneJAABarrN, et al. (2015) On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making10(6): 549–563.
28.
PreecePFWBaxterJH (2000) Scepticism and gullibility: The superstitious and pseudo-scientific beliefs of secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education22(11): 1147–1156.
29.
RosenstockIM (2005) Why people use health services. Milbank Quarterly83(4): 94–124.
30.
SaherMLindemanM (2005) Alternative medicine: A psychological persepctive. Personality and Individual Differences39(6): 1169–1178.
31.
Saint-VictorDSOmerSB (2013) Vaccine refusal and the endgame: Walking the last mile first. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences368(1623): 20120148.
32.
SarathchandraDNavinMCLargentMA, et al. (2018) A survey instrument for measuring vaccine acceptance. Preventive Medicine109: 1–7. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.01.006.
33.
ShahPMichalAIbrahimA, et al. (2017) What makes everyday scientific reasoning so challenging?Psychology of Learning and Motivation66: 251–299.
34.
SheeranPWebbTL (2016) The intention–behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass10(9): 503–518.
35.
SirotaMKostovičováLJuanchichM, et al. (2019) Measuring cognitive reflection without maths: Developing and validating the verbal cognitive reflection test. Available at: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pfe79
36.
ŠrolJDe NeysW (2020) Predicting individual differences in conflict detection and bias susceptibility during reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2019.1708793
37.
ŠrolJBallová MikuškováEČavojováV (2020) When we are worried, what are we thinking? Anxiety, lack of control, and conspiracy beliefs amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Available at: https://psyarxiv.com/f9e6p/
38.
StanovichKE (2011) Rationality and the Reflective Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39.
TobacykJ (1984) Paranormal belief and college grade point average. Psychological Reports54(1): 217–218.
40.
ToplakMEWestRFStanovichKE (2014) Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Thinking & Reasoning20(2): 147–168.
41.
TrefilJ (2008) Why Science?New York: Teachers College Press.
42.
Van ProoijenJ-W (2019) An existential threat model of conspiracy theories. European Psychologist25(1): 16–25.
43.
Van ProoijenJ-WDouglasKM (2017) Conspiracy theories as part of history: The role of societal crisis situations. Memory Studies10(3): 323–333.
44.
WallaceASWannemuehlerKBonsuG, et al. (2019) Development of a valid and reliable scale to assess parents’ beliefs and attitudes about childhood vaccines and their association with vaccination uptake and delay in Ghana. Vaccine37(6): 848–856.
45.
WarburtonFW (1956) Beliefs concerning human nature among students in a university department of education. British Journal of Educational Psychology26(3): 156–162.
46.
WeichselgartnerJ (2001) Disaster mitigation: The concept of vulnerability revisited. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal10(2): 85–94.
47.
ZeyerA (2012) A win-win situation for health and science education: Seeing through the lens of a new framework model of health literacy. In ZeyerAKyburz-GraberR (eds) Science | Environment | Health. Towards a Renewed Pedagogy for Science Education. Dordrecht: Springer, 147–173.
48.
ZimmermanC (2007) The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review27(2): 172–223.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
