Roe C A
Division of Psychology, Nene University College Northampton, UK.
Br J Psychol. 1999 Feb;90 ( Pt 1):85-98. doi: 10.1348/000712699161288.
This paper evaluates the claim that believers in the paranormal exhibit poor critical thinking ability relative to disbelievers, as manifested in their inability to evaluate the competence of experimental abstracts. It is argued that such differences reported elsewhere (Alcock & Otis, 1980; Gray & Mill, 1990) may be accountable for in terms of the action of cognitive dissonance, or as due to experimental artifacts. A study was conducted which attempted to overcome earlier methodological shortcomings, and which assessed the cognitive dissonance account of differential performance. Altogether, 117 participants were characterized as believers, neutrals or disbelievers according to a pre-measure. Subsequently, each participant was asked to evaluate an abbreviated experimental report which was either sympathetic or unsympathetic to parapsychology. No differences in assessment ratings were found, failing to replicate the claimed effect and supporting an account in terms of artifact. There was a significant tendency for those participants who received a paper which was incongruent with their a priori beliefs to rate it as less competently conducted and analysed than those who rated the congruent paper, in keeping with the cognitive dissonance account.
相对于不信者而言，超自然现象的信仰者表现出较差的批判性思维能力，这体现在他们无法评估实验摘要的质量上。有人认为，其他地方报道的此类差异（阿尔科克和奥蒂斯，1980年；格雷和米尔，1990年）可能可以从认知失调的作用方面来解释，或者归因于实验假象。本研究试图克服早期方法上的缺陷，并评估了表现差异的认知失调解释。总共117名参与者根据一项预测试被归类为信仰者、中立者或不信者。随后，要求每位参与者评估一份缩写的实验报告，该报告对超心理学要么持赞同态度，要么持反对态度。未发现评估评分存在差异，未能重现所声称的效应，并支持了假象解释。与认知失调解释一致的是，那些收到与他们先验信念不一致的论文的参与者，相较于那些收到一致论文的参与者，明显倾向于认为该论文的实施和分析能力较差。
