Culture moderates beliefs that are inconsistent with established scientific evidence
A series of four studies published in Frontiers in Psychology looked at individual differences – such as analytical thinking – known to predict epistemically suspect beliefs. This research was conducted in both Western and Eastern cultures, revealing that the link between thinking style and such beliefs vary as a function of one’s culture.
“Previous research on everyday beliefs has shown a negative association between irrational beliefs and analytic (reflective) thinking. However, some studies, including ours, failed to replicate the existing findings,” explained study author Yoshimasa Majima, a psychology professor at Hokusei Gakuen University. “Therefore, we wondered whether the relationship between beliefs and thinking styles might differ across cultures and examined the differences in the association between beliefs and thinking styles by comparing participants from the so-called WEIRD populations and those from different cultural backgrounds.”
WEIRD populations refer to those that are predominantly Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic. Most studies that have examined the association between cognitive style – i.e., intuitive (Type-1) vs. analytic (Type-2) thinking – and epistemically suspect beliefs have been conducted in such samples. These studies have forwarded that epistemically suspect beliefs are rooted in Type-1 processing, which can be overridden by Type-2 processing. However, this has been challenged by recent findings; for example, “promoting analytical thinking does not promote religious disbelief.”
In this work, Majima and colleagues examined whether prior research linking analytic thinking and epistemically suspect beliefs extend to non-WEIRD populations. The authors suggest that understanding cultural differences in thinking styles can have implications for potential interventions.
Across the four studies, the researchers recruited 666 Japanese participants, and 650 Western (i.e., United States and United Kingdom) participants.
In Study 1, participants completed measures assessing the degree to which they endorsed numerous paranormal beliefs (e.g., How likely is it that you possess some form of ‘psychic ability’?) and endorsement of various pseudoscientific beliefs (e.g., Homeopathic remedies foster spontaneous healing). A number of Cognitive Style Measures were administered to assess participants’ tendency to engage in analytic and intuitive thinking (e.g., I enjoy intellectual challenges; I like to rely on my intuitive impressions); this also included the short-form Cognitive Reflection Test, which behaviorally assesses participants’ tendency to override intuitive incorrect responses in favour of the analytically correct one. As well, participants completed a scale assessing analytic-holistic modes of thinking. Cognitive ability was measured with eight syllogisms which featured “conflict between the logical validity of the syllogism and the believability of its conclusion.” Lastly, numeracy (i.e., mathematical skills) were measured via a self-report scale.
