Samara-Colvin, Duncan Bruce. 2019. Asymmetry in Belief Formation and Change: the Role of Intuitive Cognition and Inhibition. Doctoral thesis, Goldsmiths, University of London [Thesis] https://research.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/27668/ The version presented here may differ from the published, performed or presented work. Please go to the persistent GRO record above for more information. If you believe that any material held in the repository infringes copyright law, please contact the Repository Team at Goldsmiths, University of London via the following email address: [email protected]. The item will be removed from the repository while any claim is being investigated. For more information, please contact the GRO team: [email protected] Asymmetry in Belief Formation and Change: The Role of Intuitive Cognition and Inhibition Duncan Bruce Samara-Colvin PhD Psychology Goldsmiths, University of London 1 Declaration of Authorship I, Duncan Bruce Samara-Colvin, hereby declare that this thesis and the work presented in it are entirely my own. Where I have consulted the work of others, this is always clearly stated. Signed: ______________________ Date: 24th September 2019 2 Abstract Understanding how beliefs form and change is important because people act upon their beliefs in the world around them, which has implications for everyone. The present research programme therefore aimed to explore mechanisms in the belief process. This was approached from the dual-process perspective that there are two kinds of thinking: intuitive and rational. It was predicted that belief formation and change would be path-dependent, with rational disconfirmation influencing rationally-based beliefs more and intuitive disconfirmation influencing intuitively- based beliefs more. The research programme used a mixture of lab-based studies and naturalistic intervention studies, drawing upon a range of population samples. Belief in Extrasensory Perception (ESP) was the focus for belief change, due to its association with intuitive belief-basis and broad distribution within the general population. The proposed model of path-dependent belief change was not supported, however. Ultimately, it was found that beliefs vary in being held for rational or intuitive reasons, and that this difference emerges at the belief formation stage due to the nature of the material encountered and the person’s cognitive processing style. However, neither the nature of the material nor the person’s cognitive processing style influences belief change. Therefore, while the findings did not support the specific model being tested, they did successfully demonstrate a connection between belief formation and change. It is argued that the observed asymmetry is only explainable by a difference in encoding at belief formation and that fully understanding belief therefore requires future research to solve this encoding problem. Abstract 3 Contents ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION & AIMS.................................................................................................................... 7 GENERAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 11 What is a Belief? .............................................................................................................................................. 11 The Rational Actor .......................................................................................................................................... 16 The Non-Rational Actor .................................................................................................................................. 24 Dual-Process Accounts of Cognition ............................................................................................................... 34 Path-Dependent Belief Change: A Dual-Process Model of Belief .................................................................... 43 Paranormal Beliefs as a Research Tool ............................................................................................................. 47 General Hypotheses ......................................................................................................................................... 55 STUDY 1 – BELIEF-BASIS CORRELATES WITH SELF-PREDICTED BELIEF CHANGE: A REPLICATION STUDY ........................................................................................................................ 56 Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 56 Method ............................................................................................................................................................. 60 Results ............................................................................................................................................................. 68 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................... 75 STUDY 2 – DOES BELIEF-BASIS INFLUENCE REAL WORLD BELIEF CHANGE? .............. 79 Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 79 Method ............................................................................................................................................................. 84 Results ............................................................................................................................................................. 87 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................... 94 REFINING THE BELIEF-BASIS MEASURE..................................................................................... 98 Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 98 Materials .......................................................................................................................................................... 99 Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 100 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... 103 STUDY 3 – DOES INHIBITION OF INTUITION CONTRIBUTE TO BELIEF CHANGE? .. 105 Background .................................................................................................................................................... 105 Method ........................................................................................................................................................... 112 Abstract 4 Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 116 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... 129 STUDY 4 – THE CRT5: EXTENDING THE 3-ITEM COGNITIVE REFLECTION TEST ....... 135 Background .................................................................................................................................................... 135 Method ........................................................................................................................................................... 139 Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 147 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... 155 STUDY 5 – AN EXTENDED INTERVENTION ON PATH-DEPENDENT BELIEF CHANGE .................................................................................................................................................................. 164 Background .................................................................................................................................................... 164 Method ........................................................................................................................................................... 169 Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 172 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... 183 STUDY 6 – BELIEF FORMATION AND CHANGE IN THE LAB ............................................. 190 Background .................................................................................................................................................... 190 Method ..........................................................................................................................................................