“Quick and dirty”: Intuitive cognitive style predicts trust in Didier Raoult and his hydroxychloroquine-based treatment against COVID-19

Fuhrer, Joffrey; Cova, Florián

doi:10.31234/osf.io/ju62p

Cited by 17 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, Belief Bias probes are typically considered as "logical measures of reflection" (Byrd & Conway, 2019), in which using obviously true (or false) conclusions tend to lure participants away from considering the actual validity of an argument. Moreover, scores on the Belief Bias task typically correlate with scores on the CRT (as was the case in our study, but also in other studies such as Byrd & Conway, 2019;Fuhrer & Cova, 2020). It is thus reasonable to expect that participants in a more counter-intuitive mindset, and thus more suspicious of their intuitive answers, should perform better on the Belief Bias task.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

RETRACTED: Beyond moral dilemmas: The role of reasoning in five categories of utilitarian judgment

Jaquet

Cova

2021

Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past two decades, the study of moral reasoning has been heavily influenced by Joshua Greene's dual-process model of moral judgment, according to which deontological judgments are typically supported by intuitive, automatic processes while utilitarian judgments are typically supported by reflective, conscious processes. However, most of the evidence gathered in support of this model comes from the study of people's judgments about sacrificial dilemmas, such as Trolley Problems. To which extent does this model generalize to other debates in which deontological and utilitarian judgments conflict, such as the existence of harmless moral violations, the difference between actions and omissions, the extent of our duty to help others, and the good justification for punishment? To find out, we conducted a series of five studies on the role of reflection in these kinds of moral conundrums. In Study 1, participants were asked to answer under cognitive load. In Study 2, participants had to answer under a strict time constraint. In Studies 3 to 5, we sought to promote reflection through exposure to counter-intuitive reasoning problems or direct instruction. Overall, our results offer strong support to the extension of Greene's dual-process model to moral debates on the existence of harmless violations and partial support to its extension to moral debates on the extent of our duty to help others.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

RETRACTED: Beyond moral dilemmas: The role of reasoning in five categories of utilitarian judgment

Jaquet

Cova

2021

Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, for anyone from the general public, even needing to know such indepth epidemiological information is not only unusual but potentially out of reach. Belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories is associated with lower scientific 61 and analytical 10,13,23,36,61,[68][69][70][71] reasoning, and less correct knowledge but more false beliefs about COVID-19 61 . Similarly, low levels of education are frequently associated with belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories 9,15,27,28 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…analytical thinking also showed that more analytical and less intuitive thinking styles were related to lower levels of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs 10,23,36,71 . Individuals who tend to rely on their intuitions and who had lower basic scientific knowledge were less able to discern between true and false information regarding COVID-19 and more likely to share misinformation 72 .…”

Section: Beliefs Biases and Attitudesmentioning

confidence: 93%

Antecedents and consequences of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs: a systematic review

Mulukom¹,

Pummerer²,

Alper³

et al. 2020

Preprint

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

COVID-19 conspiracy theories emerged almost immediately after the beginning of the pandemic, and the number of believers does not appear to decline. Believing in these theories can negatively affect adherence to safety guidelines and vaccination intentions, potentially endangering the lives of many. Thus, one part in successfully fighting the pandemic is to understand the antecedents and consequences of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, which are here presented in a rapid review summarizing research from more than 28 countries. We evaluate the contribution of individual difference variables (demographic variables, personality traits, coping with threat and uncertainty), beliefs, biases, and attitudes (epistemically suspect beliefs, thinking styles and cognitive biases, attitudes towards science), and social factors (group identities, trust in authorities, social media) to COVID-19 conspiracy theories. We discuss the consequences of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs in regard to safeguarding behaviours (hygiene, distancing, and mask-wearing), self-centred (hoarding) and misguided behaviours (pseudoscientific practices), vaccination intentions, mental health and negative social consequences (e.g., discrimination and violence). Differences between countries as well as various conspiracy theories are considered. Summarising, we suggest that belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories is boosted by low levels of trust in a context of threat and low levels of comprehensive, accessible information in a context of uncertainty and unknowns. We conclude that research is urgently needed to address potential interventions to (re-)establish trust and provide accessible information about COVID-19.

show abstract

“…So despite our null reflectioncompliance finding, recent COVID19 social science aligns with the current findings insofar as reflective people appreciate science and science appreciation predicted compliance. Such an indirect relationship could be a reason that reflection test performance has been a less potent predictor of attitudes about COVID19 prevention than beliefs about science (Čavojová et al, 2020;Fuhrer & Cova, 2020b).…”

Section: Cognitive Test Robustnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…). Nevertheless, other mid-pandemic reflection tests of participants recruited from other crowd work platforms achieved typical reliability (0.57 < α < 0.76 inFuhrer & Cova, 2020b, Study 2 and 3). So our reflection test results may indicate that test performance differs between crowd work platforms, that the present test performance was unreliable, or that test performance is not closely related to compliance with public health recommendations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Your health vs. my liberty: Philosophical beliefs dominated reflection and identifiable victim effects when predicting public health recommendation compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic

Byrd

Białek

2021

Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to crises, people sometimes prioritize fewer specific identifiable victims over many unspecified statistical victims. How other factors can explain this bias remains unclear. So two experiments investigated how complying with public health recommendations during the COVID19 pandemic depended on victim portrayal, reflection, and philosophical beliefs (Total N = 998). Only one experiment found that messaging about individual victims increased compliance compared to messaging about statistical victims-i.e., "flatten the curve" graphsan effect that was undetected after controlling for other factors. However, messaging about flu (vs. COVID19) indirectly reduced compliance by reducing perceived threat of the pandemic.Nevertheless, moral beliefs predicted compliance better than messaging and reflection in both experiments. The second experiment's additional measures revealed that religiosity, political preferences, and beliefs about science also predicted compliance. This suggests that flouting public health recommendations may be less about ineffective messaging or reasoning than philosophical differences.

show abstract

“Quick and dirty”: Intuitive cognitive style predicts trust in Didier Raoult and his hydroxychloroquine-based treatment against COVID-19

Cited by 17 publications

References 24 publications

RETRACTED: Beyond moral dilemmas: The role of reasoning in five categories of utilitarian judgment

RETRACTED: Beyond moral dilemmas: The role of reasoning in five categories of utilitarian judgment

Antecedents and consequences of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs: a systematic review

Your health vs. my liberty: Philosophical beliefs dominated reflection and identifiable victim effects when predicting public health recommendation compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About