ORCID Profile
0000-0002-0978-9496
Current Organisation
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 29-04-2022
Abstract: The Many Analysts Religion Project (MARP) follows in a tradition of many analysts projects that have examined how variations in analytic choices can affect results (Silberzahn & Uhlmann, 2015). One of the core strengths of the many analysts approach is that there are no direct incentives for analysis teams to attempt to achieve statistical significance (Silberzahn et al., 2018). However, in this commentary we suggest that a lack of direct incentives to achieve particular outcomes can be a double-edged sword. We use our own submissions to the MARP project to illustrate our point.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 26-04-2021
Abstract: There is widespread agreement that delusions in clinical populations and delusion-like beliefs in the general population are, in part, caused by cognitive biases. Much of the evidence comes from two influential tasks: the Beads Task and the Bias Against Disconfirmatory Evidence (BADE) Task. However, research using these tasks has been h ered by conceptual and empirical inconsistencies. In an online study, we examined relationships between delusion-like beliefs in the general population and cognitive biases associated with these tasks. Our study had four key strengths: a new animated Beads Task designed to reduce task miscomprehension, several data-quality checks to identify careless responders, a large s le (n = 1,002), and a pre-registered analysis plan. When analyzing the full s le, our results replicated classic relationships between cognitive biases and delusion-like beliefs. However, when we removed 82 careless participants from the analyses (8.2% of the s le) we found that many of these relationships were severely diminished and, in some cases, eliminated outright. These results suggest that some (but not all) seemingly well-established relationships between cognitive biases and delusion-like beliefs might be artifacts of careless responding.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 06-07-2022
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 29-07-2021
Abstract: Explanations of science denial rooted in in idual cognition tend to focus on general trait-like factors such as cognitive style, conspiracist ideation or delusional ideation. However, we argue that this focus typically glosses over the concrete, mechanistic elements of belief formation, such as hypothesis generation, data gathering, or hypothesis evaluation. We show, empirically, that such elements predict variance in science denial not accounted for by cognitive style, even after accounting for social factors such as political ideology. We conclude that a cognitive account of science denial would benefit from the study of complex (i.e., open-ended, multi-stage) problem solving that incorporates these mechanistic elements.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 06-07-2022
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 24-03-2021
Abstract: False beliefs can spread within societies even when they are costly and when in iduals share access to the same objective reality. Research on the cultural evolution of misbeliefs has demonstrated that a social context can explain what people think, but not whether it also explains how people think. We shift the focus from the diffusion of false beliefs to the diffusion of suboptimal belief-formation strategies, and identify a novel mechanism whereby misbeliefs arise and spread. We show that, when in idual decision-makers have access to the data-gathering behaviour of others, the tendency to make decisions on the basis of insufficient evidence is lified, increasing the rate of incorrect, costly decisions. We argue that this mechanism fills a gap in current explanations of problematic, widespread misbeliefs such as climate change denial.
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)
Date: 08-2023
DOI: 10.1037/ABN0000844
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Justin Sulik.