No evidence that priming analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories: A Registered Report of high-powered direct replications of Study 2 and Study 4 from Swami, Voracek, Stieger, Tran, and Furnham (2014)
Bojana Većkalov , Vukašin Gligorić , Marija B. Petrović
{"title":"No evidence that priming analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories: A Registered Report of high-powered direct replications of Study 2 and Study 4 from Swami, Voracek, Stieger, Tran, and Furnham (2014)","authors":"Bojana Većkalov , Vukašin Gligorić , Marija B. Petrović","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104549","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Analytic thinking is reliably associated with lower belief in conspiracy theories. However, evidence for whether increasing analytic thinking can reduce belief in conspiracies is sparse. As an exception to this, <span>Swami et al. (2014)</span> showed that priming analytical thinking through a verbal fluency task (i.e., scrambled sentence task) or a processing fluency manipulation (i.e., difficult-to-read fonts) reduced belief in conspiracy theories. To probe the robustness of these effects, in this Registered Report, we present two highly powered (i.e., 95%) direct replications of two of the original studies (i.e., Studies 2 and 4). We found no evidence that priming analytic thinking through the scrambled sentence task (<em>N</em> = 302), nor the difficult-to-read fonts (<em>N</em> = 488) elicited more analytic thinking, nor reduced belief in conspiracy theories. This work highlights the need for further research to identify effective ways of inducing analytic thinking in order to gauge its potential causal impact on belief in conspiracies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103123001063","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Analytic thinking is reliably associated with lower belief in conspiracy theories. However, evidence for whether increasing analytic thinking can reduce belief in conspiracies is sparse. As an exception to this, Swami et al. (2014) showed that priming analytical thinking through a verbal fluency task (i.e., scrambled sentence task) or a processing fluency manipulation (i.e., difficult-to-read fonts) reduced belief in conspiracy theories. To probe the robustness of these effects, in this Registered Report, we present two highly powered (i.e., 95%) direct replications of two of the original studies (i.e., Studies 2 and 4). We found no evidence that priming analytic thinking through the scrambled sentence task (N = 302), nor the difficult-to-read fonts (N = 488) elicited more analytic thinking, nor reduced belief in conspiracy theories. This work highlights the need for further research to identify effective ways of inducing analytic thinking in order to gauge its potential causal impact on belief in conspiracies.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology publishes original research and theory on human social behavior and related phenomena. The journal emphasizes empirical, conceptually based research that advances an understanding of important social psychological processes. The journal also publishes literature reviews, theoretical analyses, and methodological comments.