Paranormal Believers' Susceptibility to Confirmatory Versus Disconfirmatory Conjunctions

Abstract

SummaryThis study examines paranormal believers' susceptibility to the conjunction fallacy for confirmatory versus non‐confirmatory conjunctive events. Members of the UK public (N = 207) read 16 hypothetical vignettes before judging the likelihood that each constituent and their conjunction would (co) occur. Event type (paranormal versus non‐paranormal), outcome type (confirming versus disconfirming) and level of paranormal belief (in either extrasensory perception, psychokinesis or life after death)—plus relevant interaction terms—were entered into a linear mixed model analysis. As hypothesised, paranormal belief was associated with more conjunction errors regardless of event type with, in general, more errors made for confirmatory over disconfirmatory conjunctions. These trends existed for extrasensory perception and psychokinesis believers with those for life after death believers approaching significance. Consistent with Crupi and Tentori's Confirmation–Theoretical Framework, current findings suggest that paranormal believers are prone to a generic and confirmatory conjunction fallacy. Theoretical implications, methodological limitations and future research ideas are discussed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Statistical Bias and Endorsement of Conspiracy Theories

“…TPB includes concepts such as the devil, witchcraft, heaven and hell, and serves to regulate social/cultural factors (Goode, 2000). Similarly, Rogers et al (2016) noted that extrasensory perception and psychokinesis were associated with heightened susceptibility to generic conjunction fallacy. In this context, the nature of superstitious beliefs may predispose an association with conjunction error.…”

“…For instance, Dagnall et al (2014Dagnall et al ( , 2016 reported that conjunction error correlated only with TPB; the relationship with new age philosophy was not significant. Additionally, Rogers et al (2016) examined paranormal believers' susceptibility to conjunction fallacy for confirming versus disconfirming conjunctive events. Using ASGS factors, Rogers et al (2016) reported that belief in extrasensory perception & psychokinesis were associated with heightened susceptibility to generic conjunction fallacy, whilst life after death approached significance.…”

“…Additionally, Rogers et al (2016) examined paranormal believers' susceptibility to conjunction fallacy for confirming versus disconfirming conjunctive events. Using ASGS factors, Rogers et al (2016) reported that belief in extrasensory perception & psychokinesis were associated with heightened susceptibility to generic conjunction fallacy, whilst life after death approached significance. They observed also that more errors occurred for confirmatory (vs. disconfirmatory) conjunctions regardless of event type (paranormal versus non-paranormal).…”

“…Having established that the relationship between conspiratorial ideation and susceptibility to conjunction is robust, future studies may expand research to consider premise/information importance. Recent work in the area of paranormal belief by Rogers et al (2016) reported that more errors occurred for confirmatory (vs. disconfirmatory) conjunctions.…”

Individual differences in epistemically suspect beliefs: The role of analytic thinking and susceptibility to cognitive biases

“…Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Indeed, building on the biased probability judgment hypothesis, studies have shown that one specific probabilistic reasoning biasconjunction fallacyis prevalent among people with more paranormal (Prike, Arnold, & Williamson, 2017;Rogers, Davis, & Fisk, 2009;Rogers, Fisk, & Lowrie, 2016) and conspiracy beliefs (Brotherton & French, 2014). The relationship between probabilistic judgment and epistemically suspect beliefs, however, does not seem to be specific to the tendency to commit conjunction fallacy, as other probabilistic reasoning biases have also been shown to be associated with unwarranted beliefs (Dagnall, Drinkwater, Denovan, Parker, & Rowley, 2016;Dagnall, Drinkwater, Parker, & Rowley, 2014;Dagnall et al, 2007).…”