| Title |
The belief-bias effect in the production and evaluation of logical conclusions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, January 1989
|
| DOI | 10.3758/bf03199552 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Henry Markovits, Guilaine Nantel |
| Abstract |
In this study, we examined whether adult subjects' beliefs regarding the empirical truth of a conclusion affected their production as well as their evaluation of a logical conclusion in a reasoning task. In addition, the relation between the ability to resolve an abstract reasoning problem correctly and the effect of belief-bias was examined. The subjects were given one of four paper-and-pencil reasoning tasks, two of them using an evaluation paradigm, and two of them using a production paradigm. Each paradigm comprised either neutral problems or belief problems. The neutral problems were constructed to be as similar as possible to the belief problems, in order to control for extraneous factors. All four tasks also included an abstract reasoning problem. The results indicate a significant belief-bias effect for both the evaluation and the production tasks. Qualitative analysis indicated that the belief-bias effect was more pervasive in the production condition. In addition, the belief-bias effect was found to exist independently of the subjects' abstract reasoning ability. The results are discussed with reference to a two-stage model, in which belief is used to resolve uncertainties in inferentially produced conclusions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Cyprus | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 99 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 9 | 9% |
| Researcher | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 20 | 19% |
| Unknown | 18 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 57 | 54% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 3% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Unknown | 22 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2023.
All research outputs
#772,637
of 23,656,895 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#55
of 1,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230
of 55,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,656,895 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 55,029 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them