Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 HNIG&RAOIG 08 4() 2 167 – 129 (2), 14 2008, REASONING, & THINKING oni fCnd n h aaaRsac hispormet et .Stanovich. earlier E. an Keith on comments to their programme for thanked Chairs manuscript. are the Research reviewers of anonymous Canada version two the and Baron and Jonathan Canada of Toronto, Council West, St. Bloor [email protected] 252 E-mail: Toronto, 1V6. M5S of Canada University Ontario, Psychology, Applied and Development tp/wwpyrs.o/a O:10.1080/13546780701679764 DOI: http://www.psypress.com/tar ntefiueo ontv blt opeitmsd and myside predict to ability cognitive of failure the On Ó needn ftoo h otipratciia hnigtendencies thinking critical important Keywords most the surprisingly literature. of ability—as the be in cognitive two to discussed that out the of indicate indicators—turns predict results did psychometric independent opinion Our traditional prior shown. by the of bias of defined magnitude content myside the and of one- with strength less degree associate the or to bias, bias failed that myside ability myside find the cognitive argument. to less failed Although displayed balanced we observed— bias. ability a but side cognitive bias, was to of higher one-sided types of bias both a participants in prefer one-side variation substantial to was substantial likely There more Likewise, were refuted positions. that participants those than higher prior opinions gave their Participants their supported experiments. that three arguments all to indications in evaluations observed Robust involving were paradigms. avoid bias different experiments myside two to of across different and and three bias participants 1200 myside in over avoid examined to thinking—were tendency one-sided skills—the thinking critical Two hsrsac a upre ygat rmteSca cecsadHmnte Research Humanities and Sciences Social the Human from grants of by supported Department was Stanovich, research This E. Keith to addressed be should Correspondence 07Pyhlg rs,a mrn fteTyo rni ru,a nom business Informa an Group, Francis & Taylor the of imprint an Press, Psychology 2007 yieba;Oesddtikn;Cgiieability. Cognitive thinking; One-sided bias; Myside : ae aio nvriy arsnug A USA VA, Harrisonburg, University, Madison James n-ie hnigbiases thinking one-sided nvriyo oot,Canada Toronto, of University et .Stanovich E. Keith ihr .West F. Richard Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 130 hwn hthmnpromnecnb xlie ypstn certain positing by the explained with be by level can this concerned 1993; at performance largely is works Sloman, human psychologist that cognitive level A. The showing task. necessary a 1984; algorithmic out operations carry information-processing Pylyshyn, to The 1982, and Newell, 1995; processes 2001). 1982; computational 1978, Chater, varied Marr, 1990, Dennett, by 1995; & has Sterelny, 2000; made Levelt, Oaksford 1993; Davies, been terminology Tienson, 1990; 2001; has & their Bermudez, that Horgan although 1987; 1991; distinction 1990, a theorists (Anderson, analysis, cognitive of numerous level intentional power. the predictive of its types eliminate the to identify to tend noteworthy that dissociated ubiquitous is tasks a unusually it cognitive such performance, is be cognitive intelligence of to Because skills—myside associate ability. likely thinking cognitive of of thinking—are measures classes from one-sided these are and that there that believe thinking here 1995; to argue Perkins, will reasons 2003; we theoretical Furthermore, Sinatra, the 2003). & 2001, Nussbaum in 1997, one-side 2005; 2000; Sternberg, and and 1993, (Baron, literature applications Kuhn, bias educational 2005; thinking myside at Evans, critical aimed of literature the avoidance thinking in rational the skills assess foundational not bias—the do thinking, good 1995; than 1991, 2002). rather Kuhn, Weinstock, 1996; (Baron, & Scholes, one-sided & Kuhn perspectives Kardash 2001; are 2001; 1991, different Sperl, that & many Murphy, a Alexander, arguments display & Buehl, reflect also prefer People that Nussbaum 2003). they arguments Stanovich, 1998; & bias: Toplak Nickerson, Sa one-sided 2005; 1991; Bushey, Stanovich, 2005; & & Farady, & Ho, Perkins, 1991, Klaczynski 1985; Perkins, 2005; Kuhn, 2005; Lavallee, Kardash, a & 2000; in Klaczynski Semb, hypotheses 2004; Robinson, Greenhoot, test Schreiber, myside 1991; (Baron, & and display opinions Colombo, evidence, own People their to generate towards tendencies. fail biased evidence, thinking manner often evaluate critical people they these & that bias: of Perkins demonstrated both 2002; has Jordan, display & Perkins, research many Sternberg 2005; 1985; Nevertheless, in Mickler, foundational Baron, 2005). & Likewise, as Dorner, 2000; Staudinger, viewed 1993). 2004; Staudinger, also Ritchhart, Tavris, are & 1995; skills Baltes & Perkins, such 2001; (e.g., 1987; pre-eminent wisdom Wade 1999, on 1984, of 2002; writings Kuhn, Paul, theoretical deemed Stanovich, 1989; 2007; Ennis, are & 2002, & Toplak that Evans, Norris an skills 2000; 2004; in Nickerson, reasoning 1991, evidence are (Baron, with thinking deal importance problem when perspectives to a multiple ability take to about the ability the literature, and manner thinking unbiased critical the In u ruetdpnssrnl ndffrnitn h loihi from algorithmic the differentiating on strongly depends argument Our of benchmark the as taken often intelligence, of measures Interestingly, TNVC N WEST AND STANOVICH ´ Kelley, , Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 niiulsgasadeitmcvle—n hyaeidxn broad indexing the are level intentional about they the at us analysis. self-regulation values—and of epistemic telling and epistemic and pragmatic are of goals and tendencies measures person’s goals a disposition concern individual’s Thinking styles hierarchy. cognitive Many Other goal forming constructs. beliefs. towards attitudes intentional-level changing importantly, largely and and, structure are belief literature, beliefs, dispositions, this concern Thinking in 2003). Pintrich, studied 1997, 2005; & Sternberg, as Lavallee, Sinatra 2002; 2004; & 1999, Stanovich, Schommer-Aikins, Klaczynski 2003; 1996; 1997; Webster, Fauth, Jarvis, & & & Kruglanski Feinstein, Gordon, Petty, Klaczynski, Cacioppo, (e.g., 1996; styles cognitive and 2000; dispositions 2005). Lohman, Engle, memory 2002; & 1990; Engle, long-term Unsworth Shell, & the 2000; Kane in & 1985, 1999; 1977, Just, and stored 1987, Sternberg, Carpenter, Hunt, information 2001; 1999; capacity, 2000, Richards, of Deary, memory & retrieval cognitive Kyllonen, working the (Ackerman, algorithmic-level perceptual of accuracy, intelligence: of efficiency psychometric type discrimination traditional the speed, underlie Cognitive on 2003). that 1997, focused capacities Sternberg, 2003; have 2005; long Pintrich, Fischhoff, psychologists & & has Parker and Sinatra 1987; 1992; 1995; Ennis, differences (intelligence) Norris, 1998; Perkins, 2004; Sinatra, capacities individual Nickerson, & 1994; Dole cognitive 1985; Moshman, of Baron, between (e.g., critical psychology dispositions For distinction thinking or levels. individual the intentional rational a the index in of and recognised algorithmic tests primarily work the whereas both tests example, index level, to intelligence algorithmic tend of thinking the as Tests at mappings. such operational differences West, following & ability the Stanovich emphasised cognitive 2004; has (2002, 2000) Stanovich 1999, differences, individual of the study given rational 1987; Dennett, is 1995). 1991; Pollock, that beliefs Pollack, 1990; action & system, 1982, Israel, of the Newell, (Bratman, choice of beliefs the and goals and goals the system’s goals, with those concerned to is relevant analysis of level rational ytmi tepigt opt and compute to attempting is system e nesn 90 suso ilgclcnttto n algorithmic and to constitution attempting the by of made biological are specification predictions a of and provide aside set issues are sequence 1990) processing Anderson, see storage memory long-term etc.). and systems, short- mechanisms, mechanisms, registration (input-coding perceptual brain the in mechanisms information-processing nte eerhtaiini scooyhsfcsdo thinking on focused has psychology in tradition research Another the from terms into distinction algorithmic/intentional the Translating ncnrs,a h netoa ee smtmstre h ainllevel, rational the termed (sometimes level intentional the at contrast, In goals ALR OPEITTIKN BIASES THINKING PREDICT TO FAILURE ftesse’ opttos( computations system’s the of why n t nweg tutr.The structure. knowledge its and ) what 131 the Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 omno rtcltikn et—o xml,dcdn o ocntu h ako o to how is or that task strategising the macro-level construe of to construals. type how differing the deciding across example, in effort tests—for engaging allocate thinking not critical are of the on variety they if common Nonetheless, a designed, For items. in properly distracter tests. engaging identified is thinking to certainly test responses control critical is suppressing micro-level by as respondent of such engaged the type processes items, are control a IQ-test that be multiple-choice to macro-strategies on tends of example, this activation but the items, than test rather intelligence on exercised is control epc—htte nieyeiiaeitninllvlfcosol httecntutr fthe of constructors the that factors—only tests intentional-level eliminate entirely they respect—that h akdmnss xlctyta aito nitninllvlthinking level intentional in influential). variation minimally that specify cognitive to are explicitly made of is so dispositions often attempt tests demands (an are level task Thus, intentional the thinking the conditions. at rational constrained performance are or ability typical critical under of assessed measures whereas how assessments, told is and performance the maximise participant), so. to by the do where instructed to to extent is left those (not participant some are externally the to determined and situations is determined performance interpretation task are is optimal the performance contrast, interpretation maximise In task 1949; to participant. the Cronbach, instructions are and overt 2004; situations no performance given, Kanfer, that Typical & in 2002). Roberts, unconstrained Ackerman Acker- & (sometimes 1997; 1996; Zeidner, of 1994, Matthews, Heggestad, optimal field (Ackerman, & from the situations man both performance situations maximal) other of performance termed long the standpoint have a typical Psychometricians or the reflects science. cognitive actually distinguished from category of and field the arbitrary important one and from psychometrics is into science far is cognitive that tasks it or distinction of fact, In psychometrics classification arbitrary. to somewhat the outsider deem indicators An term might would thought). scientist cover rational cognitive to a used of that often operations is thinking thinking mental critical critical and of term tasks tests the on literature, aptitude those educational other the to or (in similar tests superficially (intelligence often capacities are cognitive measures) of tests on tasks The 132 efrac,a ela ednist hneblesi h aeo contrary in of implicated face the become in allow beliefs to type change to regulation former tendencies the their as not well and but as are latter performance, goals least the at personal of (or level Tasks high-level intentional constrained). the less at constrained much not are thinking rational l et fitliec rcgiieattd r pia performance optimal are aptitude cognitive or intelligence of tests All 1 ODTOSFRDSOITO EWE COGNITIVE BETWEEN DISSOCIATION FOR CONDITIONS ed o iht ru httsso ontv blt r nieyscesu nthis in successful entirely are ability cognitive of tests that argue to wish not do We attempt TNVC N WEST AND STANOVICH od o diinly ti etil h aeta oehge-ee strategic higher-level some that case the certainly is it Additionally, so. do to BLT N RTCLTHINKING CRITICAL AND ABILITY 1 ncnrs,tsso rtclor critical of tests contrast, In Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 esed ade,Hre,Wih,&Frel,20;Sa 2004; Farrelly, 1994; & Judd, Wright, & 2002; Harley, (Gilinsky Stanovich, & extent Handley, West, Toplak, large Macpherson, Newstead, Kokis, a 2004; al., to et Handley capacity algorithmic- implicate computational & still loosen do Evans they level 2003) functioning, Dolan, 1983; intentional-level & with on Goel Pollard, is 2004; constraints reasoning Feeney, & ability & syllogistic Evans Barston, cognitive 2005; as Curtis-Holmes, (Evans, and a such conflicts reasoning between tasks analogical validity/knowledge correlation Although as D’Yde- strong expected. such & moderately theoretically skill Schaeken, the thinking Verschueren, example, basic Handley, 1977; For Sternberg, 2003; 2005). Stanovich 1998; 1983; walle, Engle, Conrad, 1997, & & Rips West, 2004; & & Hambrick Evans, & Copeland 2004; Dennis, the 1995; Beveridge, Capon, Gilhooly, at Johnson-Laird, capacity & 2004; computational Bucciarelli, Radvansky, tap (Bara, strongly level they algorithmic because ability cognitive through think non-exhaustively or exhaustively possibilities). problem to tendencies (or evidence atcpnsitrrtwa h xeietrmgtde optimal 1996; Tversky, Kahneman, deem & 1979; Kahneman 2003). might 2005; Lichtenstein, Shafir, 2002, this & & Frederick, experimenter LeBoeuf & Slovic, even help Kahneman the might Fischhoff, 2000; that However cues what (see func- contains functioning. performance subjects, interpret within intentional-level between algorithmic-level run participants is association left it and the because the paradigm, decreased explicit bias probably in and of evaluation hypothetical myside unconstrained paradigm experiment lack relatively from opinion- flawed tioning (1997) The opinion either prior & conclusions. evaluate to Klaczynski detach Klaczynski led to opinion-inconsistent that participants 2005; instructions or arguments Lavallee, had evidence-based consistent & and Klaczynski 2000) experiments 1997; 1996; al., Robinson, Gordon, & example, et Klaczynski For 1997; Klaczynski however. (Klaczynski, colleagues conflicts, and validity/knowledge Klaczynski with syllogisms than would dispositions thinking assessment. the intentional-level algorithmic-level is in this that Variation contaminate efficiency conditions tests. the typical) IQ is (not of It there optimal place. focus first under tests the abilities intelligence in computational not created on of ambiguity do because be epistemic tests no however, not be such would tests, would because items intelligence Such on test dispositions. included thinking thinking critical intentional-level a constrain on conflicts 1998; knowledge West, & Stanovich 1999). Cramer, 2003; & Markovits, Thompson, & Torrens, Simoneau 1999; Stanovich, ti lal h aeta oeciia hnigtsssol erltdto related be should tasks thinking critical some that case the clearly is It te ak nteltrtr aeee esitninllvlconstraint intentional-level less even have literature the in tasks Other validity/ with reasoning syllogistic see to surprising be not would It ALR OPEITTIKN BIASES THINKING PREDICT TO FAILURE ´ et & West, , 133 Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 134 hnigdsoiin i diint ontv blt)admsd and between myside associations and examined ability) cognitive we to In 3 addition bias. also domains. one-sided (in Experiment but relatively bias dispositions status with In myside thinking task only prior bias. reasoning not study informal different one-sided to different different 15 demands and a most processing in seven used Stanovich unconstrained bias we the the over myside 2 expanded natural Experiment spread we of examining 1 at by propositions two unconstrained Experiment paradigm the relatively (2007) In in and were West level. association that intentional the ability paradigms examined the experimental we cognitive of and skills, context thinking between critical important four association only of the tests on based domains. different was four conclusion in in this bias propositions myside However, from paradigm. dissociated cognitive relatively status this and was prior status ability between cognitive One Thus, interaction ability. ability. marginal cognitive a of and displayed evidence (sex) bias no variable myside found (2007) between West association observe and the an Stanovich we beliefs), that when religious and exists assumed tion, which world. is that real like It the more in bias. is bias being myside paradigm myside is this difference natural bias this of myside individual term in ecology that the Thus, unaware the completely variable. whether assessed—hence is status by myside participant between-subjects the the indicated the of paradigm, is with magnitude the interacts paradigm to (such variable this related variable is in the difference example) in bias position’’. for individual on ability difference an status same cognitive mean whether prior as differing the the Statistically, women with as variable. groups in and between subjects the men proposition employed between the between of are defined evaluation salary was they in bias gap when variable Myside demographic ‘‘The disappears the was: for generally proposition example, each the For to factors. sex, relevant participant’s their proposition demographic of a the sex, these strength evaluated their of the defined then variables: and Participants consumption, four (2007) beliefs. alcohol on religious their West status smoked, existing they and to previously whether conditions) their Stanovich within-subjects as as so. so perspective (such from doing cues propositions doing avoid implicit to evaluate no avoid instructions are to no there myside given tendency that when when natural and the paradigm perspective so-called is own a one’s study bias in within to myside found bias introduced Natural myside was (2007) bias. between West This and relationship variables. Stanovich the difference reduce individual further and even might interest, ntesre feprmnsrpre ee eatmtdt examine to attempted we here, reported experiments of series the In consump- alcohol (smoking, variables prior-status four the of three For of variable the to cues containing not in design, between-subjects A TNVC N WEST AND STANOVICH Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 ro ttsvral.Priiat epne sn h olwn 6-point following corresponding the their using with responded grouped Participants are variable. and the in status 1, listed present Table are prior statements the of The ‘‘Secondhand column nonsmokers.’’). of (e.g., they for right-hand statements hazard which part different health to 15 a not of extent is smoke each the were with indicate disagreed that to or agreed asked problems were reasoning participants investigation, some and form 313 and drink soft favourite seventh Classic, their else. as Coke The something Coke identified identified 2005). Diet who who Free of Caffeine 135 or autumn into Coke, the sample Diet the throughout for while divided 2004, voted collected November have dichotomisation 2 would were fifth on who place data 203 taken The of had these total elections group. a actual Bush (the versus George Kerry certain for tested, John voted were have out- they not would day 156 students the and God 246 on students of total in-state the A 293 students. group into to of-state certain sample God students the the divided to remaining dichotomisation 1) (Table the exists’’ God and that ‘‘certain were they ( that certain than less ( was existed certainly God believed odikr n 8 rnes h hr ihtmsto a smoker was dichotomisation third The drinkers. 387 ( 62 into and sample the dichotomised nondrinkers question consumption alcohol The females. were sample. questions the seven dichotomise These drink. to soft used presidential favourite their concerned their of residency, and 1, strength preference, out-of-state the Table voting versus smoked, in-state of they belief, not column religious or The their left-hand whether nonsmoker/smoker.’’). consumption, the a alcohol in sex, am listed their currently are sources ‘‘I which likely (e.g., seven questions, bias on myside status natural their about of questions seven included students American; Asian 7 American; African identified 26 Other). them White; of 18 (398 89% White almost as and students), themselves (112 sophomores or students) Method ujc ola eimszdsaeuiest.Terma g a 18.7 was psychology age mean introductory Their an university. state ( through medium-sized recruited a years at females) pool 337 subject and males n ¼ yieba propositions. bias Myside h edrqeto ihtmsdtesml no12mlsad337 and males 112 into sample the dichotomised question gender The status. demographic Prior Participants. 9 essnnmkr( nonsmoker versus 49) SD ¼ .) h aoiyo hs tdnswr rsmn(281 freshmen were students these of majority The 1.2). h atcpnswr 4 negaut tdns(112 students undergraduate 449 were participants The n ¼ 9)wsfre yasgigtoeworeported who those assigning by formed was 192) XEIET1 EXPERIMENT n ¼ usqett ligottedemographic the out filling to Subsequent h eorpisfr le u ythe by out filled form demographics The n 0) ihtmsto fwehrthey whether of dichotomisation A 400). ALR OPEITTIKN BIASES THINKING PREDICT TO FAILURE ¼ 5)vru hte hi eifi God in belief their whether versus 257) 135 Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 136

TABLE 1 Prior demographic status questions and corresponding myside bias propositions

Prior demographic status question Corresponding myside bias proposition

1. Sex: 1. The gap in salary between men and women generally disappears when they (1) Male are employed in the same position.a (2) Female 2. There is bias in favour of males in admissions to medical school, law school, and graduate school.b 2. During the last month, how many times have you consumed 3. Students who drink alcohol while in college are more likely to become alcohol? alcoholic in later life.a 4. Consumption of alcohol by young adults is associated with health problems later in life.a 3. I currently am a (check one): 5. Secondhand smoke is a health hazard for nonsmokers.a (1) nonsmoker 6. The majority of nonsmokers find it very unpleasant to be near a smoking (2) smoker person in a public place.a 4. My feelings concerning the existence of God are: 7. Religious people are generally more honest than nonreligious people.a (1) I am certain that God exists, 8. The divorce rate is much higher for nonreligious people.a (2) I am pretty sure that God exists (3) I think that there probably is a God (4) I am not sure whether God exists or not (5) I think that there probably is not a God (6) I am pretty sure that God does not exist (7) I am certain that God does not exist. 5. What is your university residency status? 9. The tuition that JMU charges out-of-state students is too high relative to (1) In-state what it charges in-state students.b (2) Out-of-state (continued) Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Prior demographic status question Corresponding myside bias proposition

6. If the election were held today, I would vote for 10. The United States is safer from terrorist attack because of the invasion of (1) George W. Bush Iraq.a (2) John F. Kerry 11. Our use of fossil fuels as an energy source is resulting in dangerous global warming.b 12. Most people in Iraq welcomed the invasion by the United States in 2003.a 13. I think that the President was correct to invade Iraq in 2003.a 14. Since November 2000, unemployment in the United States has risen.b 7. Which carbonated soft drink(s) is your favourite? 15. Coke Classic, Diet Coke, or Caffeine Free Diet Coke are the most popular (1) Coke Classic, Diet Coke, or Caffeine Free Diet Coke soft drinks in America because they taste the best.a (2) Some other soft drink (3) I do not have a favourite soft drink

Participants responded to the Myside Bias Propositions using the following 6-point scale: Strongly Agree (6), Moderately Agree (5), Slightly Agree (4), Slightly Disagree (3), Moderately Disagree (2), and Strongly Disagree (1). aLower values on Prior Demographic Status Question are predicted to be associated with stronger agreement with Corresponding Myside Bias Proposition. bHigher values on Prior Demographic Status Question are predicted to be associated with stronger agreement with Corresponding Myside Bias Proposition. 137 Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 h oa A cr sue sa ne fcgiieaiiyi h analyses the in ability cognitive psychometric of on previous index highly an a loads it as correlation in because used here 1991). .51 scores is reported Stanovich, score the SAT & SAT (West total to total measure The vocabulary verified similar same and quite the using test self- was and investigation and vocabulary Stanovich (.49) test the scores. vocabulary scores verified a between total between as correlation SAT correlated extent the they same reported that that the found is to (1998) scores variable West An self-reported third 2005). the Thomas, a of & with Crede, validity Kuncel, the 2001; of (Cassady, in .90 is indication to scores .80 SAT indicated of verified have and range studies SATs the Several self-reported 2006. between in correlation the respectively that 1140, and 575, 565, were etos(hr sas 5mnt ncrdscin.Tevra eto of test words section minutes) of verbal meaning (75 The of section). ‘‘knowledge mathematics unscored assesses and test 25-minute SAT a minutes) the also referred 75 is (also (there reading’’; verbal sections pre-existing a ‘‘critical to 2006 as In added States. was to United minutes) the (60 in section testing writing admissions university for used widely 2007). Engle, & Unsworth 2004; n h 3 eann tdnswr sindt h ihSTgroup. high-SAT the group, to low-SAT assigned the were to students assigned remaining were ability’’ 231 (1150) the median and inductive the below scores and SAT reasoning together’’ quantitative logically 705). p. fit requiring 1993, sentence (Carroll, chiefly a ‘‘varied of contains items section parts mathematical different The (http://www.collegeboard.com). the how understand cr a 16( 1156 was score eotdmteaia A cr a 7 ( 579 was score SAT mathematical reported 138 eadn rpsto 2 h 3 eae eesgicnl more significantly in males ( were males of ( 112 school’’) favour graduate the females in and were school, bias than law 337 is school, medical (‘‘There to the proposition admissions example, the 15 For #2, towards the bias. of favourable 13 myside proposition that and significant direction) regarding statistically expected of degree the displayed some in displayed were propositions propositions effects 15 (all the bias of myside each that illustrates 2 Table Results ( 578 was students the mean The of form. score demographics SAT the on verbal scores reported SAT total and mathematical, (1). Disagree Strongly and (2), (4), Disagree Agree Slightly Moderately (5), (3), Agree Disagree Moderately 6), Slightly as (scored Agree Strongly scale: niscretieainteSTi -orad5-iueea htis that exam 3-hour-and-55-minute a is SAT the iteration current its In o h upsso h nlssdsrbdblw h 1 tdnswith students 218 the below, described analyses the of purposes the For ontv blt measure. ability Cognitive TNVC N WEST AND STANOVICH SD ¼ 1) h nttto-ieaeae o hsuniversity this for averages institution-wide The 110). M ¼ tdnswr se oidct hi verbal, their indicate to asked were Students 3.02), t (447) ¼ SD 7 ¼ 3.27, 7,adma oa SAT total mean and 67), p g ...andtheab 5 SD Fe Detterman, & (Frey 01 aho the of Each .001. ¼ 7,temean the 67), M ¼ lt to ility 3.47) Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 oefrPooiin1 .412 .310 25*1.23 12.50* 1.07 1.83 1.28 3.24 10 Proposition for Vote eiec ttsfrPooiin948 .834 1.36 3.47 1.28 4.81 9 Proposition for Status Residency eifi o o rpsto .012 .012 .6 0.32 3.36* 1.25 3.60 1.26 4.00 8 Proposition for God in Belief eifi o o rpsto .313 .913 .3 0.69 6.53* 1.35 2.39 1.34 3.23 7 Proposition for God in Belief mkn o rpsto .310 .410 .90.29 1.79 1.05 4.74 1.00 5.03 6 Proposition for Smoking mkn o rpsto .411 .514 .4 0.57 3.74* 1.49 4.35 1.18 5.04 5 Proposition for Smoking rnigfrPooiin449 .437 .275*1.04 7.59* 1.22 3.74 0.94 4.97 4 Proposition for Drinking rnigfrPooiin342 .329 .975*1.03 7.50* 1.29 2.94 1.23 4.26 3 Proposition for Drinking e o rpsto .212 .71.28 3.47 1.21 3.02 2 Proposition for Sex ro eorpi status demographic Prior oefrPooiin1 .712 .01.09 4.60 1.25 4.07 11 Proposition for Vote oefrPooiin1 .412 .911 10*2.00 21.00* 0.73 1.16 7.46* 1.99 1.20 1.16 4.34 2.00 1.37 2.90 13 Proposition for Vote 12 Proposition for Vote e o rpsto .812 .612 .30.18 1.63 1.21 2.96 1.20 3.18 1 Proposition for Sex tts1 ereW uh( Bush W. George 1: Status tts2 onF er ( Kerry F. John 2: Status tts1I-tt ( 1:In-State Status tts2Oto-tt ( 2:Out-of-State Status tts2NtCran( Certain 2:Not Status ( 1:Certain Status tts2NtCran( Certain 2:Not Status ( 1:Certain Status tts1Nnmkr( 1:Nonsmoker Status tts2Soe ( 2:Smoker Status tts1Nnmkr( 1:Nonsmoker Status tts2Soe ( 2:Smoker Status tts1Nnrne ( 1:Nondrinker Status tts2Dikr( 2:Drinker Status tts1Nnrne ( 1:Nondrinker Status tts2Dikr( 2:Drinker Status tts2Fml ( 2:Female Status tts1Ml ( 1:Male Status tts2Fml ( 2:Female Status tts1 ereW uh( Bush W. George 1: Status tts1 ereW uh( Bush W. George 1: Status ( Bush W. George 1: Status ( Kerry F. John 2: Status tts2 onF er ( Kerry F. John 2: Status ( Kerry F. John 2: Status tts1Ml ( 1:Male Status enmsd ispooiinsoe safnto fpirdmgahcstatus demographic prior of function a as scores proposition bias myside Mean n n ¼ ¼ n n n n n n n n n ¼ 112) ¼ 112) ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ 337) 337) 257) 257) 49) 49) 387) 387) 293) n n n n n n n ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ n n n n 400) 400) 62) 62) 192) 192) 156) ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ n n n n 203) 203) 203) 203) ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ 246) 246) 246) 246) ALR OPEITTIKN BIASES THINKING PREDICT TO FAILURE AL 2 TABLE MSDMSD tts1Sau 2 Status 1 Status 7 7 7 (4)Cohen’s t(447) 01*1.01 10.18* .7 0.36 3.27* .8 0.46 4.68* ( continued 139 d ) Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 ee ro ttsvralsgnrtda es n ttsial significant (Cohen’s statistically sizes effect one the least of at magnitude The generated bias. variables myside status prior seven 140 ro eorpi status demographic Prior otDikfrPooiin1 .314 .212 03*1.06 10.31* 1.25 2.32 1.03 1.49 4.25 3.73 1.06 3.63 15 Proposition for Drink Soft 14 Proposition for Vote nlss A lw ih n ro ttsvral sx drinking, (sex, a in variable examined status were beverage) prior voting, a each residency, In and God, 2 3). in on Table high) belief (see bias scores (low, myside by smoking, SAT of done SAT with degree was interacted the analysis, This propositions whether the ability. context, of cognitive ANOVA each by an moderated in was examining, opposite effect bias the myside having those from is differently status. bias group propositions instead of but evaluate magnitude group particular status particular a one that allow in not indication present or does between-subjects individuals paradigm a our in that gives bias Note pinpoint .77. to healthy a one averaged and 2.00 to ffc o h ro ttsvral a infiat( significant was variable status prior the for effect neato aldt ec infiac nec fteeaaye,thus analyses, these of SAT each by in variable outcomes. significance status ANOVA a the The as reach with than ANOVA). converging to rather the variable failed continuous in a regression interaction (as as 15 used variable in was tested dichotomous SAT was which interactions in the were analyses of significance results The conclusion. the smaller ability. Here are cognitive effects higher bias ability. Thus, myside of that students significance. all cognitive at for statistical evidence no of reached to provided one degree analyses interactions these of the related only of test whether None for the was indicates unambiguous. significance is it bias analyses reached because these interaction SAT myside in the of statistic for effect critical significance main the However, The proposition. cases. 15 of 6 tts2 te ( Other 2: Status tts1 oe( Coke 1: Status ( Bush W. George 1: Status tts2 onF er ( Kerry F. John 2: Status * h etsre faaye xmndwehrtemgiueo the of magnitude the whether examined analyses of series next The oepwru,flycniuu nlssas ovre ihthis with converged also analysis continuous fully powerful, more A p atra NV.A xetdgvnterslsi al ,temain the 2, Table in results the given expected As ANOVA. factorial 2 5 TNVC N WEST AND STANOVICH .001. somewhere n n ¼ ¼ 135) 313) tidctsta epewt atclrsac rgroup or stance particular a with people that indicates It . n ¼ n 203) ¼ 246) ( Continued AL 2 TABLE MSDMSD tts1Sau 2 Status 1 Status ) p 5 0 to .01 d agdfo .18 from ranged ) 7 Cohen’s t(447) .1 0.60 6.21* p 5 01 n13 in .001) d Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 oefrPo 0157**Bs Kerry Bush Out-State In-State 155.71*** for Vote SAT 104.75*** 10 Prop for Vote Residency SAT 9 Prop Residency oefrPo 12.3* uhKerry Bush 21.43*** for Vote SAT 11 Prop for Vote oefrPo 25.0* uhKerry Bush 55.20*** for Vote SAT 12 Prop for Vote A .4STLw42 16 .5(92) 1.95 Kerry (126) 4.25 Bush Low SAT 1.44 440.93*** for Vote SAT 13 Prop for Vote eifi o rp81.6* eti o Certain Not Certain 11.76*** God in Belief 8 SAT Prop God in Belief eifi o rp73.8* eti o Certain Not Certain 39.58*** God in Belief 7 SAT Prop God in Belief A .6 A o .8(9)51 (19) 5.11 Smoker (19) 4.47 (199) 5.08 Nonsmoker (199) Low 5.17 Smoker SAT (187) 2.94 Low SAT Nonsmoker Drinker 4.76* (31) 4.00 Nondrinker Drinker 1.57 1.80 Low SAT Nondrinker Smoking 12.58*** SAT 6 Prop 2.20 Smoking Smoking 57.33*** SAT 5 Prop Smoking Drinking 56.28*** SAT 4 Prop Drinking Drinking SAT 3 Prop Drinking e rp274* aeFemale Male 7.46** Sex SAT 2 Prop Sex e rp128 aeFemale Male cell) in (number Mean 2.82 445) F(1, Sex SAT 1 Prop Sex Source NV PirSau Variable Status (Prior ANOVA 6 6 SAT A .1STHg .3(7 .8(154) 3.08 (77) 3.13 High SAT 1.71 SAT 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 SAT SAT SAT SAT A .6STHg .8(0)45 (30) 4.53 (201) 4.98 High SAT 2.26 SAT SAT A .9STHg .0(1 .9(200) 3.69 (200) 2.95 (31) 5.10 High (31) SAT 4.52 High SAT 1.19 2.14 SAT SAT SAT 6 6 SAT SAT 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 A o .3(2)18 (92) 1.84 (81) 4.64 (75) (126) 5.00 3.13 (115) (150) 3.66 3.37 Low (143) SAT 3.58 High (116) SAT 3.99 Low SAT 1 High SAT 1 1 1 A o .2(2)45 (92) 4.58 (111) 1.82 (126) 4.02 (120) 3.34 Low SAT High SAT 1 1 A o .6(2)13 (92) 1.37 (111) 4.16 (126) 2.86 (120) 4.13 Low SAT High SAT 1 1 A ih29 10 .8(111) 1.98 (120) 2.98 High SAT 1 A o .1(4)35 (77) 3.51 (115) 2.34 (141) 4.01 (116) 3.16 Low SAT High SAT 1 1 A o .8(4)24 (77) 2.47 (141) 3.28 Low SAT 1 A ih49 21 .7(30) 4.27 (201) 4.91 (187) 3.79 High SAT (31) 4.84 (154) 3.45 Low SAT 1 (77) 2.94 1 High SAT 1 A o .0(5 .8(183) 3.48 (35) 3.20 Low SAT 1 A o .9(5 .7(183) 2.87 (35) 3.29 Low SAT 1 A ih44 10 .3(111) 2.03 (120) 4.43 High SAT 1 ttsvral n SAT and variable status 6 A)adma rpsto crsa ucinof function a as scores proposition mean and SAT) ALR OPEITTIKN BIASES THINKING PREDICT TO FAILURE AL 3 TABLE ( continued 141 ) Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 Method were that A paragraphs an on paragraphs thinking evaluated the while graded made Participants Participants students issue. the hypothetical abortion. about arguments on the students of of other transcriptions hypothetical issue of thinking the the evaluate participants had 2001; he 1991, Kuhn, 1995; thinking—the 2002). 1991, Weinstock, one-sided that (Baron, & arguments perspectives examine Kuhn than rather different also one-sided many are we examined reflect that relatively arguments paradigm, we prefer is this to tendency 2 that investigating in to paradigm bias Experiment addition In myside reasoning In functioning. intentional-level informal of propositions. wide unconstraining another 1 a and Experiment in across in domains ability performance used cognitive of paradigm from the variety dissociation in observed complete bias demonstrated myside natural The 142 n h n-ie isdslydi hsparadigm. bias this myside in the displayed with bias associated was Experiment one-sided In ability the issue. cognitive and to the whether one-sided did of examine they sides we preferred than both 2 position on grades their even arguments higher against containing gave argued paragraphs they participants that is, paragraphs That Amazingly, one-sided both position. to their on issue). against issue) arguments went the that the containing of arguments (i.e., side of one two-sided on were sides arguments that (all paragraphs arguments than that their paragraphs in to one-sided grades one-sided a were higher Additionally, gave issue. demonstrated—participants the was on opinion bias thinking own to their grades with higher coincided that gave demonstrated—participants was bias myside oefrPo 43.8* uhKerry cell) in (number Mean Bush 445) F(1, 38.88*** for Vote SAT 14 Prop for Vote Source otDikPo 55.5* oeOther Coke 52.85*** Drink Soft SAT 15 Prop Drink Soft ae n 1 eae)rcutdtruha nrdcoypsychology introductory an through recruited females) 311 and males * u aaimwsamdfiaino htue yBrn(95 nwhich in (1995) Baron by used that of modification a was paradigm Our Participants. p 5 TNVC N WEST AND STANOVICH 6 0,** .05, SAT 6 SAT p 5 0,*** .01, h atcpnswr 3 negaut tdns(128 students undergraduate 439 were participants The p 5 5 5 5 5 A o .9(2)42 (92) 4.29 (126) 3.69 Low SAT 1 A o .4(2 .1(146) 2.41 (111) 4.22 (72) 3.74 (120) 3.58 Low SAT High SAT 1 1 A ih37 6)22 (167) 2.24 (63) 3.71 High SAT 1 .001. XEIET2 EXPERIMENT ( Continued AL 3 TABLE ) þ oFsae A scale. F to Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 ttmns ihnec atcpn ru,teodro h esand sets the of order the reasoning of group, reasoning set participant 2anti/2pro) 0anti/4pro) each or or each 2pro/2anti 4anti/0pro groups, (either Within (either two-sided participant statements. a one-sided in a two once in and the once occurred across two statement and, represented statements evaluations, reasoning issue. pro- abortion whose consistently the students reasoning one of the and two sides anti-abortion of anti-abortion, side and two one consistently choice) only (one of by represented issue reasoning statements the followed abortion reasoning evaluated statements whose pro-choice participant students each reasoning two (4anti/0pro); two Thus statements (2pro/2anti). pro-choice 4: reasoning statements two anti-abortion set 2: four were by and set 3: statements (0anti/4pro); set of followed statements sets (2anti/2pro); reasoning anti-abortion (2anti/ the pro-choice four participants, statements two two 1: of 4: set reasoning group follows: set anti- second pro-choice as and the four two (0anti/4pro); pro- For 1: statements by (2pro/2anti); 2pro). two set reasoning statements followed 2: pro-choice reasoning statements: anti-abortion four set anti-abortion of who 3: two 4anti/0pro); sets students set by four (acronym: following followed of statements the choice reasoning reasoning of the of one abortion quality made the each evaluated group where would first places statements indicate subsequent statements. their to preceding that used their aware to with were statements were contrast the however’’ they other of showed that, the set students ‘‘on ‘‘despite student’s contrastives a The and it naturalness. within that; hand’’ and used said coherence were be set’s A could the that) authors. it increase case that; also; the the think but; also also by (e.g., I is expressions generated additionally; transitional addition; were in and statements however; adverbs Experiment five conjunctive (1995, of remaining Baron anti- variety in the eight statements reported of were and statements list these 1), a of of from modifications Eleven selected slight statements. statements or pro-choice of four eight issue of and constructions the set abortion actually about a reasoned were of were they statements consisted participants as that reasoning the loud student’s out who, speak Each students to abortion. four asked by been used had told, reasoning the of quality identified them of American; Asian 89% 19 American; and African Other). 17 students), White; 14 (389 (122 White as sophomores themselves or students) ujc ola eimszdsaeuiest.Terma g a 18.5 was age mean Their university. state ( medium-sized a years at pool subject aho h 6raoigsaeet a sdoc nec participant’s each in once used was statements reasoning 16 the of Each The groups. two of one to assigned randomly were participants The task. evaluation Thinking SD ¼ .) h aoiyo hs tdnswr rsmn(275 freshmen were students these of majority The 1.1). ahpriiatwsakdt vlaethe evaluate to asked was participant Each ALR OPEITTIKN BIASES THINKING PREDICT TO FAILURE 143 Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 h olwn sa xml fatosddsto esnn statements: reasoning of set two-sided a of example an is following The statements reasoning of set one-sided a of view: example pro-choice the an supporting is following The as were participants the by read directions The fixed. follows: was statements 144 ont rd fF hc a ie cr f1. of view: score anti-abortion a the given supporting was which F, of grade a to down laermme htyuaet vlaetetikn n o the not and thinking obviously the eliminate to evaluate edited to been have are sentences. transcripts ungrammatical you The expression. that verbal remember Please h olwn sa xml faoesddsto esnn statements reasoning of set one-sided a of example an is following The A of grade A of issue scale: the good grade how A was rate following to about the are using reason You by responses. evaluate to was student to reasoning asked several their be see were will you task they Below abortion. Your issue issue. some controversial the was. of when The about thinking would opinion thinking their reasoner good an good the about a how at like reasoned evaluate arrive reason they to to as to asked loud trying asked were out They speak be issue. to particular will asked a were you students task, These students. following the In etrt ii h itso natdcide hnlmttebrh fchildren is of it births births, the limit limit to than children going unwanted are of we births If the world. limit today’s to in better limited be must Families to enough mature are them they of when well. many children them allows have abortion raise and of are education Also, possibility who their men. The others continue of children. and to acts for adolescents criminal care are or to mistake to forcible have ready by the not forced not pregnant of should be result get women to the who addition, is woman women In it many a one. when for want no child terrible not a plans, bear methods does be future to she contraceptive would no when Also, it child has death. and a of it failure, have fear to because no subject abortion and all early pain, are an no by life, of hurt knowledge not is fetus The to effort decreased cases. to other leading is in general, abortion in life condoning life Also, human no human infants. preserve survive for is unwanted could respect of there that reduce killing fetuses to because of the likely preventing abortions abortion and late own is wanted about between their have line worry fetus on would the I us draw a of to ourselves. None place aborting aborted clear wrong. is been Also, this have mistake. and to life, to her a have having of shouldn’t from fetus someone because the and destroyed irresponsibly, pregnant be get women some Well, þ TNVC N WEST AND STANOVICH AA 7 þ B þ a crda 3 rd fAwssoe 2 n oon so and 12, scored was A of grade a 13, as scored was BB 7 C þ CC 7 D þ DD 7 F Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 cr fzr ol niaen rfrnefrete yeo argument. A of balanced type bias. either two two-sided for the a preference indicates no to indicate metric participant’s superior would the the zero rated on of be of score score would negative favour A against) in paragraphs. one (one one-side indicates and paragraphs (onebias1) metric opinion one-sided this the on two of score sum the positive bias—the that A complete from scores. subtracting 2/2 and indicates score two 0anti/4pro zero their to score of an 0pro indicate score would A score negative bias. A bias. myside evaluation. otherside argument the in the more higher unbiasedness myside the and the the bias, 0anti/ myside group, their indicate score, from scores pro-choice score 0anti/4pro difference 4anti/0pro Positive the their their score. subtracting 4pro For subtracting by derived score. by was score derived 4anti/0pro bias anti-abortion was their the score from For bias opinion. score myside prior 2pro/2anti the their on group, their depended gave calculation whose they rating the gave and they para- rating paragraph, paragraph. 4anti/0pro the paragraph, their 2anti/2pro 0anti/4pro their gave their gave they they rating the grade) the scores: four graph, transformed received participant (numerically Each (one issue). paragraphs rating abortion the one-sided of two side each and on paragraphs two-sided two paragraphs: group latter the and the pro-choice with labelled disagreement was of anti-abortion. group degree former some and The indicated statement statement. the participants with the agreement of of 39.0% degree some indicated participants the 1.Tema gemn cr a .5( Disagree 3.75 Strongly was and score (2), agreement Agree Disagree mean Slightly The Moderately (5), (1). (3), Agree Disagree Moderately the response 6), Slightly indicated following as (4), the Participants (scored using believe Agree country.’’ proposition ‘‘I Strongly items, this this format: abortion: with other in agreement of their of legal issue of be series extent the should a on abortion position in that participant’s embedded the item, probed questionnaire that a to responded ahpriiatsoesd issoewsdrvdb digter4anti/ their adding by derived was score bias one-side participant’s Each score difference a by indexed was bias myside participant’s Each bias. one-side and myside of Measurement oiino h brinissue. abortion absolutely the never alternatives. on is of lots abortion are Position Also, human, There fetus. control. a birth a killing of is only means that abortion is a do and something I as human wrong hand, women necessary through other the is Also, go the though beings means. On to do. human even other want childbirth killing by and they that pregnancy them as whether believe limit much decide to as them to late affects too able from is be children it unwanted should preventing when of means born, one being is Abortion wanted. are who ALR OPEITTIKN BIASES THINKING PREDICT TO FAILURE naohrmaue participants measure, another On S.D. ahpriiatgae four graded participant Each ¼ .9.Attlo 10 of 61.0% of total A 1.79). 145 Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 vrgsfrti nttto 52 8,ad16,respectively). 1169, and 587, (582, institution this for averages cr a 14( 1174 was score r-hie( Pro-choice atcpnsdslyda tesd is olpe costetwo the across 126 and Collapsed zero, bias. of score otherside bias an myside a displayed had participants participants 68 participants, t eotdmteaia A cr a 8 ( 588 was score SAT mathematical reported niaoto ( Anti-abortion ihrta h enfrete ftetoblne aarps(8.38 paragraphs balanced two the ( was of (8.91) either paragraph for 4anti/0pro mean 8.87). the for and for the Indeed, mean than arguments. the balanced higher group, containing that pro-choice paragraphs indicated the two results (1995) the our as Baron’s thinking, highly received replicating paragraph one-sided However, opinion one-sided for groups. bias the the prior a both surprisingly, participant’s regarding Not for finding 4. the rating 0anti/4pro Table favour highest in Likewise, the the bias in 8.91). 0anti/4pro one-sided paragraph vs than a the (9.66 one-sided of rated paragraph indications higher anti-abortion group 4anti/0pro are pro-choice The the there paragraph the groups. than and that higher both 4anti/0pro 7.80) anti- paragraph indicate of vs the ratings means the (10.22 for the The paragraph ratings rated in group. paragraph present pro-choice group four is the the bias for of myside and means group the abortion presents 4 Table Results 146 eotdvra A cr ftesuet a 8 ( 585 was students the mean The of form. score demographics SAT the on verbal scores reported SAT total and mathematical, pro- was if participant the (0anti/4pro if opinion 4anti/0pro prior and choice). anti-abortion one-sided participant’s was the the on participant score against the the went from subtracted that was scores paragraph 2/2 two the of average (438) SD enprgahrtnsfrat-brinadpococ rusi xeiet2 Experiment in groups pro-choice and anti-abortion for ratings paragraph Mean olpe costetogop,tema yieba cr a 1.40 was score bias myside mean the groups, two the across Collapsed ontv blt measure. ability Cognitive the which in calculated was (onebias2) index bias one-side second A ¼ TNVC N WEST AND STANOVICH ¼ .8,adti cr a infiatydffrn rmzero, from different significantly was score this and 3.98), 7.40, n ¼ n 6)89 .888 9.66 8.87 8.38 8.91 268) ¼ p 7)1.274 .77.80 7.87 7.45 10.22 171) 5 SD 01 yieba crswr rae hnzr o 245 for zero than greater were scores bias Myside .001. ¼ 0) hs efrpre crscoeymththe match closely scores self-reported These 109). at/po2ni2r po2ni0anti/4pro 2pro/2anti 2anti/2pro 4anti/0pro opposing tdnswr se oidct hi verbal, their indicate to asked were Students AL 4 TABLE h atcpn’ pno a ae as rated was opinion participant’s the SD ¼ 8,adma oa SAT total mean and 68), SD ¼ 0,temean the 70), Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 n r-hieoiin(faysrnt)a .Tesrnt aibecoded variable strength 1 The 0. as as strength) strength) any any (of (of opinion opinion out. pro-choice anti-abortion partialled a been an and had coded strength variable could less and ability content valence cognitive The after of whether variance and agree any bias strongly score myside for moderately, of account degree (slightly, bias the strength on disagree) and myside or anti) versus mean (pro content a slightly who of had group degree the proposition every indicates, zero. the 5 that at than Table fact bias with as the myside Indeed, reflects agreed more opinion. which of displayed however, myside strength more ends, group symmetrical, both displayed not anti-abortion the on opinions is the upward to cubic extreme curve bows relates more curve The U-shaped The with bias bias. tilted issue. those myside this The that how on indicating country’’). belief about prior this bias things of cognitive myside nature in several that to of believe legal illustrates (‘‘I not degree statement function be the but abortion of the should opinion on diagram opinion prior abortion scatter prior the the a was against of presents plotted 1 strength bias Figure the groups. ability. and myside pro-choice content the and ( and significance score anti-abortion statistical total the attained respectively). correlation for SAT Neither separately between computed correlation the ieec htwssaitclysignificant, statistically was that difference enmsd isfrtepococ ru f07 ( 0.75 of group pro-choice the for bias myside mean isfrteat-bringopws24 ( myside 2.42 mean was The group 4— bias. anti-abortion Table myside of the more perusal for a displayed from bias group apparent is anti-abortion ability the cognitive to unrelated was h ereo yieba n n-ieba oeis)wsuncorrelated was (onebias1) bias (onebias2). one-side index and bias .09 bias one-side identical myside ( An second of direction. the unexpected degree the with The two- in obtained a was the on was case with significance any correlation .09 missed in of just but correlation which test a (onebias1), tailed and bias nonsignificant bias results one-side a myside of The displayed of degree ability. scores degree total cognitive the SAT with to cut. correlation related clear was quite two- bias were a here one-side displayed and participants bias participants myside 146 43 and participants, zero, 250 of for score bias. zero bias sided than one-side a greater had were scores zero, from bias different significantly was score rus h enoesd issoews18 ( 1.86 was score bias one-side mean the groups, r ¼ ecnutdargeso nlsst xmn h ffcso opinion of effects the examine to analysis regression a conducted We to related was bias myside how further revealed analysis refined more A n biu oeta ulfiaino h nigta yiebias myside that finding the on qualification potential obvious One h e ups fEprmn a oeaiewehrtedge of degree the whether examine to was 2 Experiment of purpose key The .01). ALR OPEITTIKN BIASES THINKING PREDICT TO FAILURE t (438) t (437) SD ¼ ¼ 6.77, ¼ .6,cmae oa to compared 4.26), SD 4.37, r p ¼ ¼ 5 .5,adthis and 5.75), 7 p SD 01 One-side .001. 5 0 n .04, and .09 01 Thus .001. ¼ .4,a 3.64), 7 147 .03 Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 h eawihso h otn aibeadtesrnt aibewr both were variable significant, strength analysis, not the regression and simultaneous variable a ( content In significant the 3. response of as ‘‘moderately’’ weights response beta a ‘‘strongly’’ the 1, a as and content) 2, of as (regardless response ‘‘slightly’’ a point. each at participants multiple indicate Sunflowers 2. Experiment in statement 1. Figure 148 TNVC N WEST AND STANOVICH ctepo fmsd isa ucino ee fareetwt h abortion the with agreement of level of function a as bias myside of Scatterplot togyAre( Agree Strongly oeaeyAre( Agree Moderately lgtyAre( Agree Slightly lgtyDsge ( Disagree Slightly oeaeyDsge ( Disagree Moderately togyDsge ( Disagree Strongly enmsd iso h brinisea ucino ee of level of function a as issue abortion the on bias myside Mean gemn ihteaoto su ttmn*i xeiet2 Experiment in statement* issue abortion the with agreement ‘Ibleeta brinsol elgli hscountry’’. this in legal be should abortion that believe *‘‘I p 5 F 01i ohcss.Tebt egtfrteSTttlwas total SAT the for weight beta The cases). both in .001 1 437) (1, n n ¼ ¼ n 97) n n ¼ 9 .8(3.68) 1.78 99) ¼ ¼ ¼ 6 .3(3.37) 1.33 46) n 2 .4(4.70) 3.24 82) 2 .6(3.79) 1.06 72) 0.38, ¼ 3 .2(4.00) 2.02 43) ns AL 5 TABLE . 7 en(SD) Mean .2(3.11) 0.52 Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 nosrie ak n httemsd iso h nosrie task unconstrained situation. the processing constrained on a the in bias bias did belief myside to than relation the ability little explicitly constrained show that cognitive would the and with were that tasks correlations expected participants was higher unconstrained reasoning It display constrained which Introduction. would a the is, task in in belief—that described prior task as of bias task the reasoning avoid to formal instructed a added issue. so abortion students not the is examining these that is but as drinking—that somewhat to charged about for care emotionally addition we aggregate, age replicated, the another in in are legal should, issue to participants 3, abortion issue—the generalise the Experiment another on would association examined In it of patterns opinion. whether the or whether diverse the issue whether was of paradigm abortion examine this source the in to ability to important cognitive and specific be bias would myside between particular it that dissociation to importantly, specific were More observed have issue. we effects content and strength the strength ability. difference the individual cognitive that is, general as not opinion—that such were reveal itself—and the characteristics opinion to factors. the did of some specific content from were and predictable 2 factors was those displayed in Experiment bias However, myside least myside the Second, are—at of avoid magnitude thinking, capacity. to one-sided algorithmic-level avoid of computational tendency independent to paradigms—relatively the unconstrained tendency these the tendencies, and most thinking the thinking cognitive of two critical of pitfall—the that demonstrated independent thinking have important also experiments two critical thinking—was it these Thus, one-sided First, important ability. abilities. value another thinking to critical that tendency and demonstrated intelligence between was view developing relation our the for implications of correlation important two a contained create 2 Experiment to sufficient reasoning. not was unbiased it ability. demanded might occurred, cognitive did experiment that with this 2 the not manipulation or within-subjects that Experiment Whether a cues of in using contained paradigm task by have the evaluation bias unlike argument myside However, measure the given. 1, were of instructions Experiment that degree debiasing in unconstrained the strong relatively and the were no paradigms ability regarding reasoning Both cognitive experiment 1 bias. between Neither myside Experiment ability. connection cognitive of any and results demonstrated bias the myside between with dissociation converged 2 Experiment w diinlfaue eeicroae noEprmn .Frt we First, 3. Experiment into incorporated were features additional Two the that possible is It issue. charged highly a is however, Abortion, of findings the 1, Experiment of results the with converging to addition In XEIET3 EXPERIMENT ALR OPEITTIKN BIASES THINKING PREDICT TO FAILURE 149 Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 150 tdnswoeraoigsaeet ersne w ie ftedrinking two the of and sides two pro-drinking) students represented issue. consistently statements two issue reasoning one drinking whose of the students anti-drinking, of reasoning side consistently one the only (2pro/ (one evaluated represented statements statements participant reasoning two reasoning whose each 4: anti-drinking anti- set Thus, two and two 2anti). (4anti/0pro); by statements 2: followed (2anti/2pro); reasoning statements pro-drinking anti-drinking set reasoning four 1: pro-drinking 3: (0anti/4pro); set two follows: set statements as by were followed reasoning statements the drinking of For pro-drinking sets (2anti/2pro). the four participants, statements of reasoning pro-drinking group pro-drinking second two anti-drinking anti-drinking two two by four 4: four 2: set followed 3: 1: and set (0anti/4pro); set set (2pro/2anti); statements each reasoning statements statements: pro-drinking reasoning 4anti/0pro); who anti-drinking of students two (acronym: by sets four followed of following statements four reasoning the reasoning of the of of one set quality made the a evaluated group of pro-drinking consisted eight and anti-drinking that eight state- of reasoning list statements. constructions student’s a lowering Each from of actually years. selected issue 18 statements the had to were about told, 21 reasoned from were ments they age participants as drinking the loud legal out who, the speak of students to quality four the asked evaluate by been to used asked was reasoning participant the Each concerned age. issue drinking controversial the legal however, the task; preceding the as procedures 2. Experiment in used task evaluation thinking the identified them of American; Asian 90% 15 American; and African 20 Other). students), White; 7 (375 (112 White as sophomores themselves or students) onto Ccop ta. 96 n cieyoe-iddthinking open-minded Method actively and for 1996) 2007). difference need 1997, al., West, individual dispositions: & et (Stanovich additional thinking (Cacioppo two examined of cognition we measures 3 variables—specifically, Experiment in Second, ujc ola eimszdsaeuiest.Terma g a 18.9 was age mean Their university. state ( psychology medium-sized introductory a years an through at recruited pool females) subject 318 and males (102 h atcpnswr admyasge ooeo w rus h first The groups. two of one to assigned randomly were participants The and design same the used task evaluation thinking issue drinking The tasks. evaluation Thinking Participants. TNVC N WEST AND STANOVICH SD ¼ .) h aoiyo hs tdnswr rsmn(252 freshmen were students these of majority The 2.2). h atcpnswr 2 negaut students undergraduate 420 were participants The h brinisets a elcto of replication a was task issue abortion The Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 n loo) ahpriiatgae orprgah:totwo-sided two paragraphs: four graded participant each alcohol), and latter the and pro-drinking labelled with was disagreement of group anti-drinking. degree statement former group some the The indicated with statement. participants agreement the the of of degree 36.7% some and indicated participants the of omt h enareetsoews37 ( 3.77 was response score preceding the agreement using mean proposition the The should this indicated format. with Participants ‘‘Eighteen-year-olds agreement beverages.’’ their alcoholic issue: of drink extent to drinking right legal the the have on of position degree participant’s some indicated pro-choice anti-abortion. labelled group participants was latter group the the former and The with of statement. agreement the 44.3% of with degree disagreement and some indicated statement participants the the of 55.7% of total togyDsge 1.Tema gemn cr a .4( 3.84 was and score (2), agreement the Disagree mean Moderately using The (3), Participants (1). proposition Disagree Agree Disagree country.’’ Slightly this Moderately Strongly (4), this 6), with Agree as in Slightly (scored agreement Agree (5), legal their Strongly format: be of response following of should extent abortion: of series the abortion issue a the indicated that on in position believe embedded participant’s the item, ‘‘I probed questionnaire that items, a other to responded participants the They issue, 2. and drinking Experiment sets in the used to the A same those change of the matched on the order responded read for the reasoning participants Except of reasoning group, directions fixed. set participant 2anti/2pro) each 0anti/4pro) was or or each statements 2pro/2anti groups, 4anti/0pro (either Within (either two-sided participant statements. a one-sided in two a once in and the once occurred across statement and, evaluations o h loo issue: alcohol the for esrmn fmsd n n-iebias. one-side and myside of Measurement h usinar loicue nebde tmta rbdthe probed that item embedded an included also questionnaire The oiin naoto n rnigissues. drinking and abortion on alcohol. Positions as powerful as the by drug to psychoactive mentally people however, a not more are handle exposing think simply be to 18-year-olds will enough also Also, we mature alcoholics. 18, I becoming to people of age that, possibility younger to drinking Despite give allowed legal be the will opportunities. lowering now This will employment establishments. for people age alcohol-serving younger more legal that some the mean at Lowering will benefits. work 18 these to 18- of alcohol and deprived drinking interactions, be social not facilitates should and year-olds friendlier feel people makes Alcohol participant’s each in once used was statements reasoning 16 the of Each h olwn sa xml fatosddsto esnn statements reasoning of set two-sided a of example an is following The þ oFscale. F to ALR OPEITTIKN BIASES THINKING PREDICT TO FAILURE SD o ahise(abortion issue each For nasprt measure, separate a On ¼ .5.Attlo 63.3% of total A 1.65). SD ¼ .6.A 1.86). 151 Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 ylgsswr hsnurla ead oflc ewe aiiyand validity between conflict regards intermixed. These as were invalid). types on neutral item imaginary run is The thus Jamtops involved believability. opprobines—which the electricity; were problems are on of the syllogisms Jamtops run opprobines believability of therefore, Tuna All Eight electricity; therefore, the example, fish; valid). are (for with Tuna is content swim; congruent can swim—which fish that can was All such (for example, are worded (for judgement conclusion Roses were conclusion therefore, problems the validity the petals; of of have the Twelve believability Roses validity invalid). petals; the the is have that flowers—which with flowers such conflict the All worded by example, in were completed problems was were the (1989), judgement of Nantel Twelve and Markovits participants. from drawn largely index and index this one-sided 2, other further. the Experiment discussed of be in those not to was will as similar scores thus the highly 2/2 However, against two results went opinion. the produced that paragraph of prior one-sided average one-side the second the participant’s on A score A which paragraphs. the bias. in from balanced two-sided calculated subtracted a two was indicates the index and metric to bias opinion the superior participant’s on rated score the bias—the be negative of one-side would favour indicates against) in metric one (one this on paragraphs the of score one-sided sum positive the two A that from scores. subtracting 2/2 and score two 0anti/4pro 0anti/4pro their their to score 0pro from bias. score myside score indicate 4anti/0pro bias scores myside their difference from the Positive subtracting score group, score. by 0anti/4pro pro-drinking their derived the subtracting For was the by score. group, derived 4anti/0pro anti-drinking scores was their issue the score alcohol for bias the and Specifically, abortion myside 2 The analogously. Experiment opinion. calculated in prior as were their calculated were on scores depended issue which gave of they calculation rating score, the and paragraph, 2anti/2pro paragraph. their 2pro/2anti paragraph, their gave gave 0anti/4pro they their they gave rating grade) they transformed the rating (numerically the four paragraph, rating received 4anti/0pro the their participant issue: Each each paragraphs. for scores one-sided two and paragraphs 152 atcpnswr ntutda follows: as instructed were Participants task. reasoning Syllogistic 4anti/ their adding by derived was score bias one-side participant’s Each difference a by indexed was issue each for bias myside participant’s Each ntefloigpolm,yuwl egvntopremises two conclusion given the be whether decide will true you are problems, assume following the In TNVC N WEST AND STANOVICH ocuinfo h rmsste olw.Yumust You follows. then premises the from conclusion A . olw logically follows oa f3 ylgsi esnn problems, reasoning syllogistic 32 of total A rmtepeie rnt You not. or premises the from hc o must you which Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 yCcop ta.(96 a mlydi hssuy apeiesinclude: items Sample study. this in employed was (1996) al. et Cacioppo scale by thinking open-minded actively the .84. of was alpha) (Cronbach’s reliability ysmigtersosst h 1ies(Mean items 41 obtained the was to scale the responses on the score The Moderately The summing scored). (3), (1). by Disagree Disagree (reverse (6), Strongly Slightly Agree right’’ and (4), Strongly (2), is Agree was: Disagree Slightly ‘‘no know questionnaire (5), the scored), I Agree in (reverse something item Moderately them’’ each of against for out format made me response be talk no can abandon can case to one a important too goes good just that how are evidence matter beliefs consideration scores ‘‘Certain into of beliefs’’, higher take their Examples that always against thinking. direction should openminded ‘‘People the are toward in items tendency scored greater were a Stanovich items thinking by represented All developed constructive (1997). Sa scale thinking by West counterfactual (1989) developed and a scale from Meier’s identification items belief 2 and the (1999); from categorical Epstein items the 9 from of inventory; & items 3 Shaver, subscale 1965); Robinson, Powell, thinking 1991; & Reid, 9 Troldahl, 1992); & 1991; McCrae, Wrightsman, (Paulhus & (Costa dogmatism Inventory measuring present Openness-Values Personality the items NEO from the Revised scale items the thinking 8 of of flexible (1997); a facet West from part and items Stanovich 10 not by sources: of developed 41 scales variety for a composed from other was drawn scale items with thinking open-minded actively and The investigation. below) (described items Scale cr a 17( 1177 was score eotdmteaia A cr a 8 ( 588 was score SAT mathematical reported eotdvra A cr ftesuet a 8 ( 589 was students the mean The of form. score demographics SAT the on verbal scores reported SAT total and mathematical, nweg n esnfo e rmss crso h inconsistent the on Scores ( premises. prior 12 one’s to new aside 0 put from from to mirror ranged able that reason syllogisms being items—those of and inconsistent skill thinking the knowledge critical on Logically. the focus Follow closely Not will most Does here of (b) one analyses Logically, circling Follows Our by (a) responses alternatives: their two indicated the participants the item, each After edfrCgiinScale Cognition for Need hnigdsoiin esrs cieyOe-iddTikn (AOT) Thinking Open-minded Actively measures. dispositions Thinking ontv blt measure. ability Cognitive nomto otie ntepeie.Ti svr motn.Dcd fthe if true, Decide are response. premises important. your the very assuming circle premises, is and the This from logically premises. follows the conclusion in contained information must h tm nti cl eeitrie ihtene o cognition for need the with intermixed were scale this on items The : ups httepeie r l true all are premises the that suppose SD ¼ 103). h 8ie edfrcgiinsaepublished scale cognition for need 18-item The : tdnswr se oidct hi verbal, their indicate to asked were Students M ALR OPEITTIKN BIASES THINKING PREDICT TO FAILURE ¼ 7.12, SD n ii orefol othe to only yourself limit and SD ¼ ¼ 3.40). 7,adma oa SAT total mean and 67), ¼ 168.5, SD ¼ SD 7,temean the 67), ¼ 83.The 18.3). ´ tal. et 153 Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 hr eeas niain faoesddba nTbe7 h en fthe of means 9.05). The vs 7. Table (9.19 in close bias one-sided quite a were of indications means vs also the were (9.62 higher paragraph, There paragraph paragraph 4anti/0pro 0anti/4pro 0anti/4pro the the rated the than group rated pro-choice than the group Although higher anti-alcohol 7.92). The paragraph group. 4anti/0pro pro-alcohol the the for and group alcohol zero, from r-hie( Pro-choice ieba cr a .2( 1.82 was score bias side t opee,i re,tetikn vlain ako h brinissue, dispositions task. abortion thinking reasoning the the syllogistic issue, on the drinking and the task measures, on evaluations task evaluation thinking thinking the the order, .87. in was completed, scale cognition for need the of alpha) (Cronbach’s niaoto ( Anti-abortion niain faoesddba nTbe6 h eno h one-sided the are of both there for ( mean arguments The Likewise, two-sided the 6. 8.40). of Table mean the vs in groups. than bias higher higher (10.12 one-sided was paragraph arguments paragraph a 0anti/4pro the of 4anti/0pro rated indications group the pro-choice that (10.42 the anti- than indicate paragraph and 0anti/4pro the means group the 7.15) anti-abortion for than The The vs higher groups. ratings paragraph both group. 4anti/0pro of paragraph ratings the pro-choice the rated four in the present the is for bias of myside and means group the abortion presents 6 Table Results ( and 66.8 (2), was Disagree score Agree Moderately mean (3), The Moderately (1). for Disagree (6), Disagree Slightly Agree format Strongly (4), Strongly response Agree somewhat was: The Slightly is questionnaire thought.’’ (5), that the much one in to require item important not each prefer and would does difficult, ‘‘I but and intellectual, important me’’ is to that appealing task is a abstractly thinking of notion ‘‘The 154 (419) SD enprgahrtnsfrat-brinadpococ rusi xeiet3 Experiment in groups pro-choice and anti-abortion for ratings paragraph Mean al rsnstemaso h orprgahrtnsfrteanti- the for ratings paragraph four the of means the presents 7 Table fe opeigtedmgahcifrainset participants sheet, information demographic the completing After olpe costetogop,tema yieba cr a 2.31 was score bias myside mean the groups, two the across Collapsed ¼ TNVC N WEST AND STANOVICH ¼ .0,adti cr a infiatydffrn rmzero, from different significantly was score this and 4.20), 11.26, n ¼ t (419) n 6)84 .586 10.12 8.63 8.35 8.40 260) ¼ 6)1.272 .07.15 8.10 7.20 10.42 160) p 5 ¼ 01 olpe costetogop,tema one- mean the groups, two the across Collapsed .001. 7.38, SD at/po2ni2r po2ni0anti/4pro 2pro/2anti 2anti/2pro 4anti/0pro p 5 ¼ .001. .5,adti cr a infiatydifferent significantly was score this and 5.05), AL 6 TABLE SD ¼ 19.Tereliability The 11.9). Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 .Ne for Need 8. .AOT 7. .SAT 6. .Syllogisms 5. is,i saprn htteei tlatamds ereo domain of degree modest on bias a myside ( of least the degree issue on the alcohol bias at with myside the correlated of 8 is significantly degree was The Table there bias. issue study. one-side abortion ability. that the and bias in cognitive myside apparent variables in key to generality is the related of it all was including First, matrix bias correlation one-side a presents and bias myside zero, from .Alcohol 4. brinisewssgicnl orltdwt h ereo n-iebias one-side of degree the with correlated significantly was issue abortion ( 2.61 was score bias side .Alcohol 3. t aibe1234567 6 5 4 3 2 1 Abortion 2. Abortion 1. Variable ( arguments two-sided the of mean groups. the both than for higher was arguments one-sided r-loo ( Pro-alcohol niachl( Anti-alcohol (419) SD Cognition One-Side Myside One-Side Myside enprgahrtnsfrat-loo n r-loo rusi xeiet3 Experiment in groups pro-alcohol and anti-alcohol for ratings paragraph Mean * AOT N h ups fEprmn a oeaiewehrtedge of degree the whether examine to was 3 Experiment of purpose The olpe costetogop,tema yieba cr a 0.72 was score bias myside mean the groups, two the across Collapsed p ¼ ¼ 5 ¼ 420. .0,adti cr a infiatydffrn rmzero, from different significantly was score this and 4.10), 0,** .05, ¼ 3.58, ciiyoe-iddtikn measure. thinking open-minded activity n n t ¼ (419) p ¼ 7 7 7 7 7 6)90 .275 9.19 7.51 8.02 9.05 266) 5 necreain mn e aibe nEprmn 3 Experiment in variables key among Intercorrelations 5)96 .575 7.92 7.55 7.55 9.62 154) p 08.049 .008 .165*** 02.084 .042 00.097* .070 02.380*** .082 .213*** .046 5 0,*** .01, ¼ r 01 olpe costetogop,tema one- mean the groups, two the across Collapsed .001. ¼ 10.52, .21, p 5 7 7 at/po2ni2r po2ni0anti/4pro 2pro/2anti 2anti/2pro 4anti/0pro SD .033 .016 .001. p p 5 ¼ 5 .9,adti cr a infiatydifferent significantly was score this and 5.09), 01,adtedge foesd iso the on bias one-side of degree the and .001), .001. ALR OPEITTIKN BIASES THINKING PREDICT TO FAILURE 7 7 7 7 7 AL 8 TABLE 7 TABLE .100* .127** 06.5 .462*** .051 .076 06.034 .056 .074 7 7 08.0**.8**0.394*** .187*** .205*** .008 04.2**.217*** .225*** .024 155 Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 156 ahlvlo pno tegh ned hs h lgtyare ihthe with agreed (mean slightly bias who at otherside those bias an more Indeed, displayed displayed strength. actually drink issue proposition opinion the to of to of opposed level right strength those each with groups, legal increased both bias the for although opinion have again, Here should beverages’’). of alcoholic (‘‘Eighteen-year-olds strength issue the alcohol with more display increases to tended bias group bias. anti-abortion U-shaped the Myside myside but tilted groups, the 2. be both of for should replication Experiment opinion abortion a shows of that table believe The function (‘‘I country’’). statement this in abortion legal the on opinion the t a agrta h enmsd isdslydb h r-hiegroup pro-choice the by displayed bias myside (1.71, mean the of than larger was p onto ( cognition h enmsd isfrteat-bringop(3.27, group anti-abortion the for bias 2, and Experiment in myside Replicating strength As issues. the the true). mean of with also each varied on the was bias opinion converse prior myside the the how of content course examined of we (and 2, SAT after Experiment out predictor partialled significant a was remained total dispositions thinking the of Each syllogisms cognitive inconsistent ( total of both SAT with number with correlations significant The correlations displayed dispositions. correctly answered consistent thinking variables, task) and and reasoning difference ability robust constrained individual (a fairly syllogisms with displayed inconsistent the relationships on weak performance thinking very the of displayed either with correlate to failed issues dispositions. alcohol and abortion with ( ( correlations thinking ( scale significant open-minded scale cognition a but actively cognition small displayed the for displayed need both bias issue the myside with abortion issue, not alcohol the but scale on thinking of bias correlation Myside significant issues dispositions. both thinking syllogisms for inconsistent of scores number SAT with correctly. respectively). uncorrelated issues, answered with also alcohol and was abortion uncorrelated bias the for Myside .05 was and .08 of bias (correlations one-side of of (correlations issues both for 7 scores SAT with uncorrelated ( was issue alcohol the on (418) 5 0 o h brinadachlise,rsetvl) ieie h degree the Likewise, respectively). issues, alcohol and abortion the for .08 al 0dsly naaoostbeo en costersosst the to responses the across means of table analogous an displays 10 Table ncnrs oteucntandtikn vlaintss which tasks, evaluation thinking unconstrained the to contrast In the with correlate to tendency weak a displayed bias myside of degree The 01,atvl pnmne hnig( thinking open-minded actively .001), TNVC N WEST AND STANOVICH ¼ 3.75, r SD ¼ p .21, ¼ 5 r .6,adtedffrnewssaitclysignificant, statistically was difference the and 3.76), ¼ 01 al lutae o yieba a eae to related was bias myside how illustrates 9 Table .001. p 7 5 r .10, ¼ 01.Te.6creainvldtsteSTscores. SAT the validates correlation .46 The .001). .38, p 7 5 1 ( .17 p 0) h ereo n-ieba nbt the both on bias one-side of degree The .05). 5 01.Hwvr h ereo yiebias myside of degree the However, .001). p 5 01 ihteatvl open-minded actively the with .001) 7 r .13, ¼ .22, p 5 p 5 0)adtene for need the and .01) ¼ 01,adne for need and .001), 7 r 1.15). ¼ 0) o the For .01). SD 7 0 and .04 ¼ r ¼ 4.68) .46, Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 n h teghvral eebt infiat( significant both variable were 3. content variable as the strength response of ‘‘strongly’’ the weights a beta and any the and analysis, anti- (of 2, regression simultaneous opinion as an a response pro-choice In ‘‘moderately’’ coded of a a (regardless response 1, variable ‘‘slightly’’ and as a content) content coded 1 variable strength as the The 0. strength) analysis, as been strength) any had first (of strength opinion the and moderately,abortion content In after (slightly, variance out. strength any partialled cognitive whether for and and account bias myside could anti) of ability degree the versus on disagree) (pro or agree strongly content opinion of nlss h eawihso h otn aibeadtesrnt variable 0. strength the as and strength) variable ( any content significant regression the (of both simultaneous of a were opinion weights In pro-alcohol analysis. beta previous the a the analysis, in and as 1 coded was as Strength strength) any significant,(of not was total SAT the for weight beta oa a o significant, not was total o ohise ecnutdargeso nlsst xmn h effects the examine to analysis regression a conducted we issues both For ntescn nlsstecnetvral oe nat-loo opinion anti-alcohol an coded variable content the analysis second the In togyAre( Agree Strongly togyAre( Agree Strongly oeaeyAre( Agree Moderately oeaeyAre( Agree Moderately ( Agree Slightly lgtyAre( Agree Slightly lgtyDsge ( Disagree Slightly oeaeyDsge ( Disagree Moderately oeaeyDsge ( Disagree Moderately lgtyDsge ( Disagree Slightly togyDsge ( Disagree Strongly beverages’’. togyDsge ( Disagree Strongly enmsd iso h brinisea ucino ee of level of function a as issue abortion the on bias myside Mean enmsd iso h loo su safnto flvlof level of function a as issue alcohol the on bias myside Mean gemn ihteaoto su statement issue abortion the with agreement gemn ihteachlisestatement issue alcohol the with agreement { x ‘ihenya-lssol aetelglrgtt rn alcoholic drink to right legal the have should ‘‘Eighteen-year-olds ‘ eiv htaoto hudb ea nti country’’. this in legal be should abortion that believe ‘‘I n n n n ¼ ¼ p ¼ ¼ n n 5 4 .2(3.61) 0.82 74) 104) n n n n ¼ ¼ 0 .1(4.46) 1.61 70) 1)27 (3.92) 2.74 111) ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ F 1 .3(3.50) 0.83 41) 2 .5(3.78) 0.55 42) n n 01i ohcss.Tebt egtfrteSAT the for weight beta The cases). both in .001 6 .6(4.68) 4.86 86) 1 .6(4.61) 3.16 61) 1 418) (1, 2 .0(3.30) 0.50 92) 5 .7(3.31) 1.07 75) ¼ ¼ 3 .5(4.44) 2.15 33) 1 .0(3.31) 0.90 51) ALR OPEITTIKN BIASES THINKING PREDICT TO FAILURE AL 10 TABLE AL 9 TABLE ¼ 0.67, ns . p 5 x { F nEprmn 3 Experiment in nEprmn 3 Experiment in 1 418) (1, 01i ohcss.The cases). both in .001 7 en(SD) Mean en(SD) Mean .5(3.80) 1.15 ¼ 1.14, ns . 157 Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 158 eg,Akra ta. 99 arl,19;Day 00 01 Deary, 2001; & 2000, Lubinski Deary, 2004; 2000, 1993; Lubinski, 2004; Carroll, 1997). Fox, Humphreys, 1999; & enumerate Whalley, to al., Starr, large Whiteman, et too almost Ackerman are of discovered that plethora (e.g., skills first a thinking with (1904) and experiments correlated abilities that these Spearman have cognitive find indicators in also since to intelligence bias manifold, Ever failure myside thinking—was positive the surprising. of it, incredibly degree one-sided of the seems face critical avoid predicted the important ability On to cognitive another ability. cognitive that tendency of found independent also across skill—the and we (1995) beliefs, Baron thinking related by prior was introduced different different ability paradigm of cognitive the two that different Using variety evidence bias. to three a little myside very to Across and failure found paradigms thinking. we a beliefs, different one-sided prior the merely two and involving bias than to experiments myside rather clear of issue correlates been their an of of have consistency. attempt own sides nature an should their represented both monitor contrasting statements it presenting the two-sided is, student’s at two- of a the That that aware of participants authors well statements. (e.g., the contrastives were implied subsequent of pragmatically use statements that the noted hand’’) sided despite be were other observed should the It was significant 13 domains. ‘‘on bias statistically of issue one-sided effects, showed different this within-subjects two indications also that bias across a experiments effects robust using different myside bias two domains one-side demonstrated latter opinion seven 15 different These 3 across the two design. and across Of distributed bias 2 myside bias. propositions on Experiments shown potential different significant. was bias of 15 myside domains of of degree between-subjects a some myside 1, bias, each of Experiment myside indications In of robust demonstrated. demonstration were here, bias reported one-side experiments and three the Across hr,bt ontv blt n hnigdsoiin orltdwith correlated dispositions thinking and ability performance. syllogistic issue. reasoning cognitive the from alcohol constraint. both those intentional-level more There, the with with of task contrasted content reasoning of results and measure—a strength reasoning These context were the opinion. issue to that related the prior to were the but responses in ability the cognitive in to results bias unrelated one-side and of myside the pattern Specifically, demonstrated analogous 3 Experiment importantly, an More issue. abortion the regarding h ou foreprmns oee,wso h niiuldifference individual the on was however, experiments, our of focus The nsmay xeiet3rpiae h eut fEprmn 2 Experiment of results the replicated 3 Experiment summary, In TNVC N WEST AND STANOVICH EEA DISCUSSION GENERAL Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 h ereo yieba nbt h brinadteachlissue alcohol the and abortion the both on bias predicted myside opinion (multiple prior issue of issue the significantly alcohol of degree abortion was content the issues the and the two on strength the on the bias across Second, bias displayed correlated). myside bias myside with extent, one-side some the First, correlation to (likewise, significant factors. least at a other could, displayed experiment. bias by the myside predicted of of between focus degree be the the bias that was 3 bias measured Experiment that 1 all The at Experiment bias. cues few of one-side had or paradigm and myside subjects not bias avoid did experiment myside to our same participant natural that contrast, in the In knowledge. used task. instruct paradigm by this specifically (1995) influenced on Baron the performance being of to avoid version related and was these validity was ability participant on Cognitive in the focus were 3, measures Experiment to which in in instructed examined example, one-sided features task For had reasoning functioning. and syllogistic intentional-level that the of myside paradigms constraining less from the relatively derived that were is experiments ability cognitive aine(06 nqevrac) iia atr edfrtealcohol the additional people variance). for more unique held 10.5% times equation, pattern versus variance the similar four unique A into almost (1.8% variance). issue entered for unique were accounted (10.6% dispositions variance strength SAT thinking and after two individual contrast, content the In three for variance. and need the and additional and total bias, 2.7% thinking, content for myside open-minded once accounted actively of cognition) total, issue, the predictors (SAT of abortion factors as any difference the entered than For were predictors potent opinion strength fact, factors. more the In difference were of tasks. strength) individual characteristics been and reasoning the (content have unconstrained as that itself would indicated these such cognition regressions in functioning for simultaneous predictors need intentional-level potent and We of more low. thinking quite measures open-minded was association thought actively this of have magnitude cognitive the would bias, than myside of other in degree variables variance with reliable correlations enough display was actively bias) ability. to there of one-side bias measure of short, a degree myside In the with not thinking. correlations (but small, open-minded issues albeit both significant, on displayed bias myside of degree hyaesrcue orplcnrdcoyies(olk&Saoih 2003). Stanovich, & (Toplak strongly ideas how contradictory in repel differ to engender—that structured they bias are myside they of degree the in differ lhuhntascae ihcgiieaiiy hr eeidctosin indications were there ability, cognitive with associated not Although from dissociation unusual this for reason the that conjecture We nte a otiko hsi htterslssgeti ih o be not might it suggest results the that is this of think to way Another the with correlated thinking open-minded actively although Nevertheless, h r hrceie ymr rls yieba,but bias, myside less or more by characterised are who R f.3 n 38 epciey both respectively, .328, and .336 of ALR OPEITTIKN BIASES THINKING PREDICT TO FAILURE p s 5 01.Fnly the Finally, .001). beliefs that 159 Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 n oal neesr ntecs fcnitn ylgss hs eut r eycongruent very are results These (2004). syllogisms syllogisms. al. inconsistent et consistent the of Handley of case of case the those Decoupling the in with necessary (.26). in most syllogisms unnecessary is consistent totally override the 1 and in System and was of SAT correlation purpose between latter the The correlation for (.34). the syllogisms than neutral higher the and turn SAT between correlation the than idxdb eea nelgneidcs oet h oeadpeitthe predict and fore the displayed. abilities to their bias the decoupling come myside from indices) at of their detach intelligence degree constrained to in general tasks by cued differences (indexed in explicitly perspective—individual situations, are current bias people In functioning. level—when myside 2 subject System structures intentional natural in knowledge differences to the individual of little not contrast function and so a call functioning). is is automatic shown (intentional-level to bias bias dispositions of myside decontextualising (algorithmic- degree thinking automatic why ability by The cognitive or is to as moderated functioning) such This subject indices little level 2. processing 2 beliefs System is System to by and and related out knowledge 1 carried the System operations of from function triggering 1. a System largely from knowl- call knowledge production to well-instantiated serial subject importantly, a by also But, ‘‘call’’ are As 2. access structures System an edge structure. for in available not operating knowledge is reflects systems course but interlocking experiments of regulation, it these epistemic an structure, of of mechanism all reflects generic in instead intentional-level a bias or determined myside the power to that the computational belief contrast of reflect prior In the magnitude 2. dispositions, cognition the System thinking with and for associated open- ability cognitive regulation actively need & epistemic as of Stanovich and such processes 1999; dispositions are thinking Stanovich, thinking SAT 2006; dual-process Likewise, minded in the 2003, 2003). system Evans, as 2000, analytic see such West, the 2; the of measures of (System power ability predictors theories computational poor Cognitive the rather of bias. are indices myside cognition) thinking of for intelligence, need degree (e.g., as functioning cognitive such of dispositions areas 1996, large Sloman, permeate 2003; to Brainerd, be & (Evans, Lloyd, might 2004). Frederick, theory 1999, Reyna, & Stanovich, factors Kahneman 2002; dual-process 2002; 2004; Over, 1996, difference from Over, 2005; & concepts individual 2002, Evans 2007; some 2006, than 2003, more using 1984, explain bias to by factors myside content understood opinion in for tendency this variance that possible is It 160 ishsadffrn rcsiglgcta ospoesn ne explicit under processing does than logic processing different a has bias eaesgetn hti nosrie yieba aaim,ba is bias paradigms, bias myside unconstrained in that suggesting are We posited are that characteristics difference individual general that Consider 2 neetnl,tecreainbtenSTadteicnitn ylgss(4)wshigher was (.46) syllogisms inconsistent the and SAT between correlation the Interestingly, TNVC N WEST AND STANOVICH 2 hs eseuaeta aua myside natural that speculate we Thus, Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 cemn .L,&Hgetd .D 19) nelgne esnlt,aditrss Evidence interests: and personality, Intelligence, (1997). D. E. Heggestad, & L., P. Ackerman, ao,J 19) eif bu hnig nJ os .Pris .Sgl(Eds.), Segal J. & Perkins, D. Voss, J. syllogistic In of thinking. Development about Beliefs (1995). (1991). N. J. P. Baron, Johnson-Laird, (1985). J. & Baron, M., Bucciarelli, G., B. Bara, ats .B,&Sadne,U .(00.Wso:Amthuitc(rgai)t orchestrate to (pragmatic) metaheuristic A Wisdom: (2000). M. U. Staudinger, & B., P. Baltes, cemn .L 19) nelgne teto,adlann:Mxmladtypical and Maximal learning: and attention, Intelligence, (1994). L. P. Ackerman, of quality important an entirely miss thus thinking. SAT Cognitive good the tendencies. as thinking such critical measures of indicate ability independent thus indicators—turns surprisingly results psychometric be Our traditional to out by literature. reasoning by defined thinking canonical studied intelligence—as critical the that the traditionally in of paradigms discussed indicators to the skills reasoning better than here—rather syllogistic psychologists—are tendency studied cognitive and tasks the former—the bias Thus, evidence. belief the new the on Importantly, belief emphasises prior perspective. literature current spontaneously one’s thinking from critical detach to instructions cemn .L,&Kne,R 20) ontv,aetv,adcntv set fautintellect adult of aspects conative and affective, Cognitive, (2004). R. Kanfer, & L., P. Ackerman, and interests, personality, Process, development: adult of theory A (1996). L. P. Ackerman, emdz .L 20) omtvt n ainlt ndlsoa sciti disorders. psychiatric delusional in rationality and Normativity (2001). L. J. Bermudez, (2000). J. Baron, ao,J 19) yieba ntikn bu abortion. about thinking in bias Myside (1995). J. Baron, nesn .R 19) shmncgiinadaptive? cognition human Is (1991). R. J. Anderson, nesn .R (1990). R. J. Anderson, (1999). (Eds.). R. Richards, & P., Kyllonen, P., Ackerman, o vrapn traits. overlapping for esnn n education and reasoning reasoning. idadvru oadexcellence. toward virtue and mind 517. efrac.I .K etra (Ed.), Detterman K. D. In performance. oiain mto,adcgiin nertv esetvso nelculfntoigand functioning intellectual on perspectives (Eds.), Sternberg Integrative J. R. cognition: development & Dai and Y. emotion, D. In Motivation, framework. performance maximal and typical a within knowledge. Ablex. NJ: Norwood, 27). – 1 pp. Language soitsInc. Associates rcs,tat n otn determinants content and Association. trait, Process, , 16 mrcnJunlo Psychology of Journal American Intelligence p.19–11.Mha,N:Lwec rbu soitsInc. Associates Erlbaum Lawrence NJ: Mahwah, 141). – 119 (pp. 5 493. – 457 , hnigaddeciding and Thinking ainlt n intelligence. and Rationality dp h esetvso tesadt vi moigone’s imposing avoid to and others of perspectives the adopt h dpiecaatro thought. of character adaptive The scooia Bulletin Psychological , p.19–16.Hlsae J arneElamAscae Inc. Associates Erlbaum Lawrence NJ: Hillsdale, 186). – 169 (pp. 22 2 257. – 227 , REFERENCES 3dE..Cmrde A abig nvriyPress. University Cambridge MA: Cambridge, Ed.). (3rd mrcnPsychologist American ALR OPEITTIKN BIASES THINKING PREDICT TO FAILURE abig,U:CmrdeUiest Press. University Cambridge UK: Cambridge, , ahntn C mrcnPsychological American DC: Washington, . urn oisi ua intelligence human in topics Current 108 , eie aucitrcie 8Ags 2007 August 28 received manuscript Revised 121 5 193. – 157 , 1 245. – 219 , is ulse nie1 eebr2007 December 10 online published First eairladBanSciences Brain and Behavioral hnigadReasoning and Thinking aucitrcie 8Mrh2007 March 28 received Manuscript erigadidvda differences: individual and Learning ildl,N:Lwec Erlbaum Lawrence NJ: Hillsdale, , 55 2 136. – 122 , , 1 2 235. – 221 , , 14 Informal Vl 4, (Vol. id& Mind 7 – 471 , 161 Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 vn,J t .T 20) h nuneo ro eifo cetfi hnig nP artes S. Carruthers, P. In thinking. scientific on belief prior of influence The (2002). T. B. St. J. Evans, vn,J t .T 20) ntomns ulpoesacut freasoning. of accounts Dual-process minds: two In (2003). T. B. St. J. Evans, ni,R .(97.Atxnm fciia hnigdsoiin n blte.I .Brn& Baron J. In abilities. and dispositions thinking critical of taxonomy A of (1987). construction H. cognitive the R. in Ennis, change Reconceptualizing (1998). M. G. Sinatra, & A., J. Dole, vn,J t .T 18) ersi n nltcpoessi reasoning. in processes analytic and Heuristic specific (1984). with T. variable B. coping St. broad J. A thinking: Evans, Constructive (1989). P. Meier, & S., Epstein, (1987). D. Dennett, er,I . htmn .C,Sar .M,Waly .J,&Fx .C 20) h matof impact (1978). The C. (2004). D. C. H. Dennett, Fox, & J., L. Whalley, M., J. Starr, C., M. Whiteman, J., I. Deary, (2001). J. I. Deary, ais .(00.Itrcinwtotrdcin h eainhpbtenproa and personal between (2000). relationship J. The I. reduction: Deary, without Interaction (2000). M. (1992). Davies, R. R. McCrae, & T., P. Costa, rnah .J (1949). J. L. Cronbach, vn,J t .T 20) h ersi-nltcter fraoig xeso n evaluation. and Extension reasoning: of theory heuristic-analytic The (2006). T. B. St. J. Evans, (2005). T. B. St. J. Evans, oead .E,&Rdasy .A 20) okn eoyadsloitcreasoning. syllogistic and memory Working (2004). A. G. Radvansky, & E., D. Copeland, in differences Dispositional (1996). W. Jarvis, & J., Feinstein, E., R. Petty, T., J. Cacioppo, uh,M . lxne,P . upy .K,&Sel .T 20) rfiigpruso:The persuasion: Profiling (2001). T. C. Sperl, & K., P. Murphy, A., practical P. Alexander, resource-bounded M., and M. Buehl, Plans (1991). E. M. Pollack, & J., D. Israel, E., M. Bratman, 162 asd,J .(01.Sl-eotdGAadST ehdlgclnote. methodological A SAT: and GPA Self-reported (2001). C. A J. measures: Cassady, test intelligence one What (1993). B. (1990). J. P. Carroll, Shell, & A., M. Just, A., P. Carpenter, tc,&M igl(Eds.), Siegal M. & Stich, abig nvriyPress. University Cambridge Psychology .Seneg(Eds.), Sternberg R. knowledge. components. Freeman. H. W. Press. MIT MA: hlho nelgneo ae ie olwn pteSots etlSreso 92and 1932 of Surveys Mental Scottish the up Following life: 1947. later on intelligence childhood Press. Press. University Oxford UK: Oxford, u-esnllvl fdescription. of levels sub-personal scooia sesetResources. Assessment Psychological scooi ultnadReview and Bulletin Psychonomic Press. Sciences Cognitive urel ora fEprmna Psychology Experimental of Journal Quarterly cognition. for need in varying individuals of times and Bulletin life Psychological The motivation: cognitive oeo eif,kolde n neeti h rcsigo esaietxsta ayby vary that texts persuasive of processing the in interest structure. and argument knowledge, beliefs, of role Press. MIT (Eds.), MA: Pollock Cambridge, 22). J. – 7 & (pp. Cummins J. In reasoning. seset eerh&Evaluation & Research Assessment, Press. University Cambridge UK: Test. Matrices Progressive Raven the in Review processing the of account theoretical TNVC N WEST AND STANOVICH ora fProaiyadSca Psychology Social and Personality of Journal , 97 0 431. – 404 , , dctoa Psychologist Educational 75 ora fProaiyadSca Psychology Social and Personality of Journal 5 468. – 451 , h netoa stance. intentional The nelgne eysotintroduction. short very A Intelligence: okn ono ua nelgne rmpyhmtist h brain. the to psychometrics From intelligence: human on down Looking ua ontv blte:Asre ffco-nltcstudies. factor-analytic of survey A abilities: cognitive Human , 7 risom:Pioohclesy nmn n psychology. and mind on essays Philosophical Brainstorms: ora fLtrc Research Literacy of Journal 5 459. – 454 , setaso scooia testing. psychological of Essentials ecigtikn kls hoyadpractice and Theory skills: thinking Teaching , 119 o od eerh scooitsguide. psychologist’s A research: do to How 9 253. – 197 , h ontv ai fscience of basis cognitive The , 13 id&Society & Mind , 7 , 7 395. – 378 , 1) 6. – 1 (12), 33 abig,M:MTPress. MIT MA: Cambridge, eie E esnlt inventory. personality NEO Revised 0 128. – 109 , , 57 hlspyadA:Esy tteinterface the at Essays AI: and Philosophy , ,13 1457. – 1437 A, , 33 , 1 86 6 301. – 269 , 7–105. – 87 , 3 147. – 130 , e ok Harper. York: New p.13–20.Cmrde UK: Cambridge, 210). – 193 (pp. xod K xodUniversity Oxford UK: Oxford, , 57 3 350. – 332 , p.9–2) e York: New 26). – 9 (pp. oe K Psychology UK: Hove, rts ora of Journal British Psychological dsa FL: Odessa, Cambridge, Cambridge, rnsin Trends Practical Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 ade,S . ao,A,Bvrde . ens . vn,J t .T 20) Working (2004). T. B. St. J. Evans, & I., Dennis, M., Beveridge, A., In Capon, solving. J., problem S. in memory Handley, working of role The (2003). W. R. Engle, & Z., D. Hambrick, ut .(99.Itliec n ua eore:Ps,peet n uue nP Ackerman, P. In future. and present, Past, resources: human (Ed.), and Vernon Intelligence A. (1999). P. E. In Hunt, ability. verbal on word next The C. (1987). In E. science. Hunt, cognitive nonclassical in description of Levels (1993). J. Tienson, & T., Horgan, anmn . rdrc,S 20) oe fhuitcjdmn.I .J oya & Holyoak J. K. In judgment. heuristic of model A (2005). S. Frederick, & D., a Kahneman, as rules in rational substitution Attribute of revisited: Violations Representativeness (2002). view: S. Frederick, of & point D., Kahneman, psychological A (2000). D. Kahneman, reho,A . eb . oob,J,&Shebr .(04.Pirblesand beliefs Prior (2004). T. Schreiber, & J., Colombo, G., Semb, F., A. Greenhoot, ol . oa,R .(03.Epann ouaino esnn ybelief. by reasoning of modulation Explaining (2003). span. J. life R. the Dolan, across reasoning & in Sternberg V., bias J. Goel, and R. memory Working & (1994). Leighton B. P. B. Judd, J. & In A., reasoning. Gilinsky, and memory Working (2004). J. K. between relationship Gilhooly, The g? or assessment Scholastic (2004). K. D. Detterman, & C., M. Frey, analysis. sensitivity Subjective (2004). (1979). S. E. Lichtenstein, D. & Over, P., Slovic, & B., T., Fischhoff, B. St. J. Evans, vn,J t .T,&Oe,D .(1996). E. D. Over, & T., B. St. J. Evans, vn,J t .T,&Fee,A 20) h oeo ro eifi esnn.I .P Leighton P. J. In reasoning. in belief prior of role The (2004). A. Feeney, & T., B. St. J. Evans, anmn . vrk,A 19) nteraiyo ontv illusions. cognitive of reality the On (1996). A. Tversky, & D., Kahneman, vn,J t .T,Brtn . olr,P 18) ntecnitbtenlgcadble in belief and logic between conflict the On (1983). P. Pollard, & J., Barston, T., B. St. J. Evans, (2007). T. B. St. J. Evans, vn,J t .T,&Cri-oms .(05.Rpdrsodn nrae eifba:Evidence bias: belief increases responding Rapid (2005). J. Curtis-Holmes, & T., B. St. J. Evans, eoy niioycnrladtedvlpeto hlrnsreasoning. children’s of development the and Reasoning control inhibitory memory, Press. University (Eds.), Cambridge Sternberg J. MA: R. Cambridge, & Davidson E. J. 221. .Kloe,&R ihrs(Eds.), determinants Richards content R. & Kyllonen, P. intelligence and processing Press. University Cambridge UK: (Eds.), Peterson D. & Hookway nutv uget nT ioih .Gin .Khea (Eds.), Kahneman D. & Griffin, judgment D. Press. intuitive of Gilovich, psychology The T. biases: In judgment. intuitive processes. mental of diagnostic ehdlgclcnet nsinicreasoning. scientific in concepts methodological B22. – B11 scooyadAging and Psychology (Eds.), ability. cognitive general and 378. – test 373 assessment scholastic the Performance Human and Behavior Press. nvriyPress. University .J trbr (Eds.), Sternberg J. R. & Review e ok abig nvriyPress. University Cambridge York: New (Eds.), Morrison G. R. ylgsi reasoning. syllogistic Press. Psychology York: New o h ulpoester freasoning. of theory dual-process the for , h aueo reasoning of nature The 103 , 10 8 591. – 582 , 7 195. – 175 , p.3–2) ahntn C mrcnPyhlgclAssociation. Psychological American DC: Washington, 28). – 3 (pp. eoy&Cognition & Memory , 9 h abig adoko hnigadreasoning and thinking of handbook Cambridge The 5 371. – 356 , yohtcltikn:Da rcse nraoigadjudgment. and reasoning in processes Dual thinking: Hypothetical h aueo reasoning of nature The p.37–32.Nrod J Ablex. NJ: Norwood, 392). – 347 (pp. p.4 7.Cmrde K abig nvriyPress. University Cambridge UK: Cambridge, 77). – 49 (pp. eairladBanSciences Brain and Behavioral hlspyadcgiiescience cognitive and Philosophy , 23 erigadidvda ieecs rcs,tat and trait, Process, differences: individual and Learning 3 359. – 339 , ALR OPEITTIKN BIASES THINKING PREDICT TO FAILURE If. ainlt n reasoning. and Rationality h scooyo rbe solving problem of psychology The hnigadReasoning and Thinking xod xodUiest Press. University Oxford Oxford: , p.4 1.NwYr:CmrdeUniversity Cambridge York: New 81). – 49 (pp. 11 9 306. – 295 , p.7 0) abig,U:Cambridge UK: Cambridge, 102). – 78 (pp. ple ontv Psychology Cognitive Applied , scooia Science Psychological 23 p.19–18.Cambridge, 188). – 159 (pp. 8 683. – 681 , , 11 oe K Psychology UK: Hove, 8 389. – 382 , pe finformation- of Speed p.27–293). – 267 (pp. p.16–206). – 176 (pp. ersisand Heuristics Organizational Cognition Psychological hnigand Thinking , 18 , 0 – 203 , 15 163 , (6), 87 , Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 eou,R . hfi,E 20) eptogt n hlo rms ntessetblt to susceptibility the On frames: shallow and thoughts Deep point (2003). grade E. Shafir, self-reported & of A., R. validity LeBoeuf, The (2005). L. L. Thomas, & M., Crede, R., N. Kuncel, matter? it does why and thinking epistemological is What (2002). M. Weinstock, & D., Kuhn, (2005). D. Kuhn, eet .(95.Catr fpyhlg.I .L os .W asr (Eds.), Massaro W. D. & Solso L. R. In psychology. of Chapters (1995). W. Levelt, uisi .(04.Itouto oteseilscino ontv blte:10yasafter years 100 abilities: differences: cognitive on individual section assessing special the of to Introduction significance (2004). social D. Lubinski, and Scientific (2000). D. Lubinski, omn .F 20) ope nomto rcsigaditliec.I .J Sternberg J. R. In intelligence. and processing information Complex (2000). F. D. Lohman, lcysi .A 19) isi dlset’eeya esnn n t relationship evaluations adolescents’ on its influences Self-serving and (1996). H. reasoning D. Gordon, everyday & A., P. adolescents’ Klaczynski, in Bias (1997). A. P. beliefs, Klaczynski, epistemological beliefs, pre-existing of Effects (1996). J. R. Scholes, capacity, & working-memory M., C. cortex Kardash, prefrontal of role The (2002). W. R. Engle, & J., M. Kane, 164 un .(01.Hwd epeknow? people do How (2001). D. Kuhn, and ‘‘Seizing’’ mind: the closing Motivated (1996). M. D. Webster, & W., and A. Heuristic and (2002). Kruglanski, E. K. ability, Stanovich, & intellectual F., R. theories, West, M., Toplak, Personal R., Macpherson, (2000). J., Kokis, B. Robinson, & A., P. Klaczynski, and regulation, epistemic identity, Domain-specific (2005). L. and K. reasoning Lavallee, & critical A., Goal-oriented P. Klaczynski, (1997). J. Fauth, & H., D. Gordon, A., P. Klaczynski, un .(99.Advlpetlmdlo rtclthinking. critical of model developmental A (1999). D. Kuhn, reasoning. informal and scientific Connecting (1993). D. Kuhn, (1991). D. Kuhn, rmn effects. framing literature. the of review and meta-analysis Research A Educational scores: test and ranks, class averages, (Eds.), Pintrich Inc. R. knowing P. and & knowledge about Hofer K. B. In fProaiyadSca Psychology Measured’’. Social and and Determined Personality Objectively of Intelligence, ‘‘General (1904) Spearman’s points’’. critical few a at shafts ‘‘Sinking Press. (Ed.), beyond and 2001 mind: the of fble-eeatevidence. motivation. belief-relevant of self-serving and theories, personal Psychology ability, intellectual with issues. controversial of interpretation on cognition Psychology for need perspective. and individual-differences An intelligence: Review fluid and Bulletin general Psychonomic and attention, executive 6–26. – 16 ‘‘freezing’’. styles. cognitive and Psychology ability Child cognitive Experimental with of associations Journal and trends Age processing: analytic tasks. reasoning everyday in differences perspective. Aging age dual-process Adult beliefs: A epistemological reasoning: belief-based Psychology of Child Experimental predictors of Journal as ability intellectual biases. reasoning 485. – critical 470 in differences individual 4–103. – 74 TNVC N WEST AND STANOVICH , adoko intelligence of Handbook 15 0 416. – 400 , , , scooia Review Psychological 33 88 dcto o thinking. for Education h klso argument. of skills The 7 283. – 273 , 271. – 260 , ora fBhvoa eiinMaking Decision Behavioral of Journal , 75 3–82. – 63 , ora fEprmna hl Psychology Child Experimental of Journal p.14–22.NwYr:Ofr nvriyPress. University Oxford York: New 202). – 184 (pp. p.11–14.Mha,N:Lwec rbu Associates Erlbaum Lawrence NJ: Mahwah, 144). – 121 (pp. , , p.25–30.Cmrde A abig University Cambridge MA: Cambridge, 340). – 285 (pp. 103 9 3 671. – 637 , , 6 283. – 263 , abig,U:CmrdeUiest Press. University Cambridge UK: Cambridge, 86 scooia Science Psychological abig,M:HradUiest Press. University Harvard MA: Cambridge, 6–111. – 96 , nulRve fPsychology of Review Annual , , esnleitmlg:Tepyhlg fbeliefs of psychology The epistemology: Personal 83 92 6–52. – 26 , 24. – 1 , ora fEuainlPsychology Educational of Journal , 16 7–92. – 77 , , dctoa Researcher Educational 12 erl-amrQuarterly Merrill-Palmer ,1–8. ora fEducational of Journal , , 62 51 1 339. – 317 , 0 444. – 405 , scooyand Psychology Developmental h science The eiwof Review Journal , 28 , , (2), 89 38 , , Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 ekn,D .(02.Teegn ffly nR .Seneg(Ed.), Sternberg J. R. In folly. of engine The (2002). N. D. Perkins, ekn,D . aay . uhy .(91.Eeya esnn n h ot of roots the and reasoning Everyday (1991). B. Bushey, & M., Farady, N., D. Perkins, alu,D . ed .B 19) nacmn n eili oilydsrberesponding. desirable socially in denial and Enhancement (1991). B. D. Reid, & & Lockhead, L., J. D. Perkins, Paulhus, N. D. In person. critical the and thinking Critical (1987). W. R. Paul, usam .M,&Snta .M 20) ruetadcneta engagement. conceptual and Argument (2003). M. G. Sinatra, & M., E. Nussbaum, ekn,D .(1995). N. D. Perkins, al .W 18) rtcltikn:Fnaetlt dcto o resceyi North in society free a for education to Fundamental thinking: Critical (1984). W. R. Paul, akr .M,&Fsho,B 20) eiinmkn optne External competence: Decision-making (2005). B. Fischhoff, & M., A. Millar A. & Parker, Bermudez L. J. In psychology. evolutionary of rationality explanation The computational (2002). the E. and D. reasoning Over, of Theories (1995). N. Chater, & M., Oaksford, the on text and instructions goal of effects The (2005). M. C. Kardash, & M., E. Nussbaum, ekn,D .(95.Pspiayeuainhsltl mato nomlreasoning. informal on impact little has education Postprimary (1985). N. D. Perkins, ors .P,&Ens .H (1989). H. R. critically. Ennis, think & to P., disposition S. the for Norris, Testing (1992). P. S. Norris, esed .E,Hnly .J,Hre,C,Wih,H,&Frel,D 20) Individual (2004). D. Farrelly, & H., Wright, C., Harley, J., S. Handley, E., S. Newstead, (1990). A. level. A. knowledge Newell, In The rationality. (1982). A. of Newell, promotion the and metareasoning, Reasoning, (1994). D. (2002). Moshman, D. R. Roberts, & M., Zeidner, of G., evaluation Matthews, and production (1982). the D. in Marr, effect belief-bias The (1989). G. Nantel, & epidemiology H., into Markovits, intelligence general Incorporating (1997). G. L. Humphreys, & D., Lubinski, ikro,R .(04.Tahn esnn.I .P egtn&R .Seneg(Eds.), Sternberg J. R. & Leighton P. J. In reasoning. Teaching (2004). S. R. Nickerson, ikro,R .(98.Cnrainba:Auiutu hnmnni ayguises. many in phenomenon ubiquitous A bias: Confirmation (1998). S. R. Nickerson, stupid Press. Free York: nelgne nJ os .Pris .Sgl(Eds.), Inc. Segal Associates Erlbaum J. Lawrence & NJ: Perkins, Hillsdale, 105). D. – 83 Voss, (pp. J. In intelligence. ora fProaiyadSca Psychology Social and Personality of Journal Inc. Associates Erlbaum Lawrence (Eds.), Bishop J. 14. – 4 otmoayEuainlPsychology Educational Contemporary 169. – 157 mrc:Anwter fkolde erig n literacy. and learning, knowledge, of theory new A America: aiaintruha niiuldffrne approach. differences individual Making an through validation Press. University Oxford (Eds.), inference. everyday of writing. during counterarguments of generation Publications. dctoa Psychology Educational aueo reasoning of nature ieecsi eutv reasoning. deductive in differences (Eds.), Efklides A. development. & Demetriou Press. MIT MA: Cambridge, conclusions. logical sciences. social the and fGnrlPsychology General of p.6 5.NwHvn T aeUiest Press. University Yale CT: Haven, New 85). – 64 (pp. esnadntr:Esy nteter frationality of theory the in Essays nature: and Reason , 18 27. – 1 , p.15–10.Asedm Elsevier. Amsterdam: 150). – 135 (pp. Vision. nfidtere fcognition. of theories Unified hnig h eoditrainlconference international second The Thinking: p.40–42.Cmrde K abig nvriyPress. University Cambridge UK: Cambridge, 442). – 410 (pp. eoy&Cognition & Memory usatn Q h mrigsineo eral intelligence. learnable of science emerging The IQ: Outsmarting a rnic:W .Freeman. H. W. Francisco: San , hnigadReasoning and Thinking , 2 Intelligence 7 220. – 175 , 77 6 571. – 562 , urel ora fEprmna Psychology Experimental of Journal Quarterly vlaigciia thinking. critical Evaluating , 24 rica Intelligence Artificial ALR OPEITTIKN BIASES THINKING PREDICT TO FAILURE , nelgne id n esnn:Srcueand Structure reasoning: and mind, Intelligence, 5 201. – 159 , 28 , 8 395. – 384 , 17 abig,M:HradUiest Press. University Harvard MA: Cambridge, , 1–17. – 11 , 60 , 1 0 317. – 307 , 2 152. – 121 , ora fEuainlPsychology Educational of Journal mtoa nelgne cec myth. & Science intelligence: Emotional nomlraoigadeducation and reasoning Informal , ora fBhvoa Decision Behavioral of Journal 18 dctoa Leadership Educational 7–127. – 87 , p.17–27.Ofr,UK: Oxford, 207). – 187 (pp. p.33–43.Hlsae NJ: Hillsdale, 403). – 373 (pp. nomlLogic Informal aicGoe A Midwest CA: Grove, Pacific h mr epecnb so be can people smart Why , , 14 57A 5 164. – 157 , ora of Journal 3–60. – 33 , , Review 42 165 , New The (1), 97 , Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 tnvc,K . et .F 19) esnn neednl fpirble and belief prior of independently Reasoning (1997). F. R. West, & E., K. Stanovich, science: (2004). cognitive E. K. in Stanovich, analysis of levels and intelligence, Rationality, (2002). E. K. Stanovich, tnvc,K .(1999). E. K. Stanovich, pamn .(94.Gnrlitliec,ojcieydtrie n measured. and determined objectively intelligence, General (1904). C. Spearman, reasoning. (Eds.), of Peterson systems two D. for & case empirical Hookway The C. (1996). A. In S. system. Sloman, control a as mind The (1993). A. Sloman, In learning. change conceptual in intentions of role The (2003). R. P. Pintrich, & M., G. Sinatra, lmn .A 20) w ytm fraoig nT ioih .Gin .Kahneman D. & Griffin, D. Gilovich, T. In reasoning. of systems Two (2002). A. S. Sloman, empirically not are that premises with Reasoning (2003). H. Markovits, & M., the Simoneau, Introducing system: belief epistemological the Explaining (2004). M. Schommer-Aikins, Sa Sa tnvc,K . et .F 19) niiuldffrne nrtoa thought. rational in differences Individual (1998). F. R. West, & E., K. Stanovich, ekn,D,&Rthat .(04.We sgo hnig nD .Di&R .Sternberg J. R. & Dai (1995). L. Y. J. D. Pollock, In thinking? good is When (2004). R. Ritchhart, & D., Perkins, 166 is .J,&Cna,F .(93.Idvda ieecsi deduction. in differences Individual (1983). G. F. Conrad, & J., L. Rips, An rationality: and development, Memory, (2003). J. C. Brainerd, & J., F. Lloyd, F., V. Reyna, (1984). Z. Pylyshyn, oisn .P,Sae,P . rgtmn .S (1991). S. L. Wrightsman, & R., P. Shaver, P., J. Robinson, ´ ´ .C,Ws,R . tnvc,K .(99.Tedmi pcfiiyadgnrlt of generality and specificity domain The (1999). E. K. theories: Stanovich, personal & about F., R. Thinking West, (2005). C., E. W. K. , Stanovich, & C., Ho, C., Kelley, W., , niiuldffrne natvl pnmne thinking. open-minded actively in differences individual Press. Chicago of Press. University University (Ed.), Yale Sternberg CT: Haven, J. New R. 158). – 124 In (pp. possible? dysrationalia Is Inc. Associates Erlbaum Lawrence NJ: ora fPsychology of Journal abig nvriyPress. University Cambridge 119 science Press. cognitive and Philosophy Inc. Associates (Eds.), Erlbaum Pintrich Lawrence R. NJ: P. & Sinatra M. G. 975. – 964 (Eds.), retrieval. and inhibition of role the for Evidence true: 30. approach. – 19 research coordinated and model systemic embedded eifba:Sacigfragnrlsbeciia hnigskill. thinking critical generalisable a for Psychology Searching bias: belief evidence. and theory of Differences coordination the in differences Individual attitudes psychological xeietlPyhlg:General Psychology: Experimental 89 n development and (Eds.), nertv hoyo ugetaddcso aig nS .Shedr&J Shanteau J. & Theory Schneider L. S. In Press. University making. Cambridge decision and judgment (Eds.), of theory integrative Press. MIT 4 357. – 342 , 22. – 3 , TNVC N WEST AND STANOVICH , ersisadbae:Tepyhlg fitiiejudgment intuitive of psychology The biases: and Heuristics oiain mto,adcgiin nertv esetvso nelculfunctioning intellectual on perspectives Integrative cognition: and emotion, Motivation, mrigprpcie njdmn n eiinresearch decision and judgment on perspectives Emerging 6 5 285. – 259 , , , 38 91 19–1161. – 1149 , 3,47–510. – 497 (3), p.31–34.Mha,N:Lwec rbu soitsInc. Associates Erlbaum Lawrence NJ: Mahwah, 384). – 351 (pp. optto n cognition. and Computation ontv apnr:Abupitfrhwt ul person. a build to how for blueprint A carpentry: Cognitive h srtoa?Suiso niiuldffrne nreasoning. in differences individual of Studies rational? is Who h oo’ eelo:Fnigmaigi h g fDarwin. of age the in meaning Finding rebellion: robot’s The , Vl ,p.50–54.SnDeo A cdmcPress. Academic CA: Diego, San 564). – 560 pp. 1, (Vol. 15 0 293. – 201 , , p.6 1) abig,U:CmrdeUniversity Cambridge UK: Cambridge, 110). – 69 (pp. 127 6 188. – 161 , netoa ocpulchange. conceptual Intentional abig,M:MTPress. MIT MA: Cambridge, h mr epecnb ostupid so be can people smart Why ora fEuainlPsychology Educational of Journal esrso esnlt n social and personality of Measures eeomna Psychology Developmental dctoa Psychologist Educational p.21–25.NwYork: New 245). – 201 (pp. p.39–36.NwYork: New 396). – 379 (pp. esnlt n Individual and Personality ora fEducational of Journal scooia Bulletin Psychological p.1–1) Mahwah, 18). – 1 (pp. onto n Brain and Cognition abig,MA: Cambridge, ora of Journal Mahwah, American Chicago: , , 39 39 , , , , Downloaded By: [James Madison University] At: 12:09 29 April 2008 olk .E,&Saoih .E 20) soitosbtenmsd iso ninformal an on bias myside between Associations (2003). E. K. Stanovich, & E., M. Toplak, olk .E,&Saoih .E 20) h oanseict n eeaiyo disjunctive of generality and specificity domain The (2002). E. K. Stanovich, & E., M. Toplak, (2005). (Eds.). J. Jordan, & J., R. Sternberg, (2003). in J. wisdom of R. theory balance Sternberg, The wisdom: for teach should schools Why (2001). J. R. Sternberg, (2000). (Ed.). J. R. Sternberg, (1997). J. R. Sternberg, (1985). J. R. Sternberg, orn,D,Topo,V . rmr .M 19) niiuldffrne n h eifbias belief the and differences Individual (1999). M. K. Cramer, & A., V. Thompson, D., Torrens, trbr,R .(1977). J. R. Sternberg, (2001). K. Sterelny, et .F,&Saoih .E 19) h nietlaqiiino nomto rmreading. from information of acquisition incidental The (1991). E. K. Stanovich, & F., (1993). R. C. West, Tavris, & C., Wade, A reasoning: conditional Everyday (2005). G. D’Ydewalle, & W., Schaeken, N., Verschueren, rlal . oel .(95.Asotfr omts cl o s nfil studies. field in use for scale dogmatism short-form A (1965). F. Powell, & V., Troldahl, nwrh . nl,R .(07.Tentr fidvda ieecsi okn memory working in differences individual of nature The (2007). W. R. Engle, Examining abilities: & fluid N., and Unsworth, capacity memory Working (2005). W. R. Engle, & N., Unsworth, tnvc,K . et .F 20) vltoayvru ntuetlgas How goals: instrumental versus Evolutionary (2003). F. R. West, & E., the for K. Implications reasoning: in Stanovich, differences Individual descriptive (2000). F. and R. normative West, & between E., K. Discrepancies Stanovich, (1999). F. R. West, & E., K. Stanovich, trly .(1990). K. Sterelny, tuigr .M,Dre,J,&Mclr .(05.Wso n esnlt.I .J. R. In personality. and Wisdom (2005). C. Mickler, & J., Dorner, ability. cognitive M., of independent U. is bias Staudinger, myside Natural (2007). F. R. West, & E., K. Stanovich, esnn akadaon fps-eodr education. post-secondary of amount and task reasoning esnn:Sacigfragnrlsbeciia hnigskill. thinking critical generalisable a Psychology for Searching reasoning: Press. University Cambridge York: New Press. University Cambridge settings. educational Press. University Cambridge Inc. Associates Erlbaum Lawrence NJ: Forces ffc:Mna oes oia eest,adasrc reasoning. abstract and necessity, logical models, Mental effect: 860. – 851 nvriyPress. University Blackwell. scooia Science Psychological use. likelihood Cognition and counterexample & between tradeoff memory-dependent working aaiy ciemitnnei rmr eoyadcnrle erhfo secondary from search controlled and memory primary in memory. maintenance Active capacity: Raven. and Span Operation between correlation the h scooyo hnig h debate The (Eds.), thinking: Over D. of In psychology rationality. the human misconceives psychology evolutionary principle. understanding/acceptance debate? the rationality and making decision Psychology of models 1) e ok abig nvriyPress. University Cambridge York: New 219). trbr .Jra (Eds.), Jordan J. & Sternberg Reasoning & Thinking , 44 scooia Review Psychological 1 215. – 211 , , , , 94 38 33 9 209. – 197 , 4 385. – 349 , 0 119. – 107 , h ersnainlter fmn:A introduction. An mind: of theory representational The h vlto faec n te essays. other and agency of evolution The eairladBanSciences Brain and Behavioral nelgne nomto rcsig n nlgclreasoning. analogical and processing, information Intelligence, hnigstyles. Thinking eodI:Atirhcter fhmnintelligence. human of theory triarchic A IQ: Beyond dctoa Psychologist Educational , , 2 idm nelgne n raiiysynthesized. creativity and intelligence, Wisdom, 13 2 330. – 325 , adoko intelligence of Handbook 2 247. – 225 , rtcladcetv thinking. creative and Critical adoko idm scooia perspectives Psychological wisdom: of handbook A , 114 0 132. – 104 , abig,U:CmrdeUiest Press. University Cambridge UK: Cambridge, ALR OPEITTIKN BIASES THINKING PREDICT TO FAILURE p.11–20.Hv,U:Pyhlg Press. Psychology UK: Hove, 230). – 171 (pp. adoko idm scooia perspectives Psychological wisdom: of handbook A , 36 , 2 245. – 227 , e ok abig nvriyPress. University Cambridge York: New . 23 4 726. – 645 , Intelligence ple ontv Psychology Cognitive Applied e ok aprCollins. Harper York: New hnigadReasoning and Thinking abig,U:Cambridge UK: Cambridge, , 33 ora fEducational of Journal 7–81. – 67 , xod K Basil UK: Oxford, abig,UK: Cambridge, abig,UK: Cambridge, vlto and Evolution p.11– 191 (pp. Hillsdale, Cognitive , Memory 5 28. – 1 , Social 167 , 17 . ,