Suppr超能文献

论分析性思维倾向:四种不同的直觉-分析思维风格。

On the Disposition to Think Analytically: Four Distinct Intuitive-Analytic Thinking Styles.

机构信息

University of Regina, SK, Canada.

Rhode Island College, Providence, USA.

出版信息

Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2024 Jun;50(6):906-923. doi: 10.1177/01461672231154886. Epub 2023 Mar 2.

Abstract

Many measures have been developed to index intuitive versus analytic thinking. Yet it remains an open question whether people primarily vary along a single dimension or if there are genuinely different types of thinking styles. We distinguish between four distinct types of thinking styles: Actively Open-minded Thinking, Close-Minded Thinking, Preference for Intuitive Thinking, and Preference for Effortful Thinking. We discovered strong predictive validity across several outcome measures (e.g., epistemically suspect beliefs, bullshit receptivity, empathy, moral judgments), with some subscales having stronger predictive validity for some outcomes but not others. Furthermore, Actively Open-minded Thinking, in particular, strongly outperformed the Cognitive Reflection Test in predicting misperceptions about COVID-19 and the ability to discern between vaccination-related true and false news. Our results indicate that people do, in fact, differ along multiple dimensions of intuitive-analytic thinking styles and that these dimensions have consequences for understanding a wide range of beliefs and behaviors.

摘要

许多衡量指标被开发出来用于衡量直观思维与分析思维。然而,人们是否主要沿着单一维度变化,或者是否存在真正不同类型的思维方式,这仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。我们区分了四种不同的思维方式:积极开放思维、封闭思维、偏好直观思维和偏好费力思维。我们在几个结果衡量指标(例如,可疑的认识论信念、易受骗程度、同理心、道德判断)上发现了很强的预测有效性,一些子量表对某些结果的预测有效性更强,但对其他结果则不然。此外,积极开放思维,特别是在预测对 COVID-19 的误解以及区分与疫苗接种相关的真假新闻的能力方面,明显优于认知反射测试。我们的结果表明,人们实际上确实在直观分析思维方式的多个维度上存在差异,这些维度对理解广泛的信仰和行为具有重要意义。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/dbdf/11080384/ea6a188f0f1f/10.1177_01461672231154886-fig1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验