Effects of Thinking Dispositions, General Ability, Numeracy, and Instructional Set on Judgments and Decision-Making

Abstract

To explore hypotheses based on Stanovich’s proposal that analytic processing comprises a reflective-level, an algorithmic level, and specific mindware, 342 participants completed measures of thinking dispositions, general ability (GA), numeracy, and probabilistic and nonprobabilistic reasoning. In a control condition, numeracy predicted probabilistic reasoning at high levels of both thinking dispositions and GA, and GA predicted nonprobabilistic reasoning at high levels of thinking dispositions. In a logic instruction condition, numeracy predicted probabilistic reasoning when GA was high, and GA affected nonprobabilistic reasoning directly. Thinking dispositions moderated neither relationship. Instead, instructions facilitated reasoning for low thinking disposition/high-ability participants, suggesting that logic instructions cued low thinking disposition individuals to engage in higher order reflective processing. The evidence is consistent with the proposals that reflective processes are essential to the allocation of algorithmic resources, and algorithmic resources are necessary for effective mindware implementation.

Ability-related political polarization in the COVID-19 pandemic

“…It is troublesome that education and attention to news did not predict attitudes and behaviors as much as ideology: People with more information and greater skill to use it should have greater understanding and make more normative choices, consistent with public health guidelines. In fact, for most non-COVID-19-related issues, greater intelligence and specific cognitive abilities (e.g., knowledge, numeracy, literacy) are associated with more accurate decisions (e.g., Bruine de Bruin, Parker, & Fischhoff, 2007 ; De keersmaecker & Roets, 2017 ; Klaczynski & Felmban, 2020 ; Murphy & Hall, 2011 ; Peters et al, 2006 ; Stanovich & West, 2008 ), taking more protective health behaviors (e.g., Dieckmann et al, 2015 ), and better health outcomes (e.g., Cavanaugh et al, 2008 ; Estrada, Martin-Hryniewicz, Peek, Collins, & Byrd, 2004 ; Gottfredson & Deary, 2004 ; Peters et al, 2017 ). Cognitive ability should help people evaluate evidence in more normative fashion and come to accurate conclusions about how to respond to COVID-19.…”

Numeracy, gist, literal thinking and the value of nothing in decision making

“…Hence, as suggested above in our discussion about confidence, the implementation of the domain-specific competence of numeracy would depend to some extent on metacognitive thinking dispositions 21 , 23 , 63 . Researchers tested this hypothesis, distinguishing general ability (fluid intelligence), numeracy and thinking disposition (reflective versus impulsive) to study their relationships to probabilistic reasoning (an example of numerical processing) 64 . They found that, although individual differences in thinking disposition (metacognition) did not moderate the relation between numeracy and probabilistic reasoning, an experimentally induced thinking ‘disposition’ did moderate it.…”

“…In addition, although the CRT and numeracy tests correlated with one another, the CRT also accounted for unique variance beyond numeracy in predicting risk and ratio judgements 33 , 45 (see also refs. 59 , 64 ). In a study in which subjects described their thinking aloud, it was similarly concluded that the CRT is a multi-faceted construct rather than a single dimension, as both numeracy and reflectivity accounted for performance 71 .…”

“…Neuroimaging, event-related potentials and other neuroscience studies are also instructive but similarly correlational 190 – 192 . However, theories that identify underlying mental processes can be used to create experimental manipulations that mimic effects of individual and developmental differences to test causal links 64 , 129 . Although general brain training programmes are not necessarily effective 193 , a randomized control approximate arithmetic training experiment improved the consistency of risk judgements in trained versus control subjects, the first such causal experiment 194 (but see ref.…”