Cognition
@cognitionjournal.bsky.social
190 followers 110 following 240 posts
EiC team: Johan Wagemans, Ian Dobbins, Ori Friedman, and Katrien Segaert
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
cognitionjournal.bsky.social
Our research suggests trying to persuade people who have inaccurate beliefs with accurate information may not be as effective as previously thought as people’s evaluation of new information is skewed by their prior (potentially inaccurate) beliefs.
cognitionjournal.bsky.social
The effect of prior belief was larger than the effect of argument quality, which was manipulated by comparing arguments making strong cases (e.g., using statistical evidence) with those making a weak case (e.g., relying on a non-expert authority).
cognitionjournal.bsky.social
We find that participants’ prior beliefs are correlated with how favourably they rate the quality of socio-political arguments. People perceive arguments as being of good quality when in line with what the person already believes.
cognitionjournal.bsky.social
In our study, we investigated how people evaluate everyday socio-political arguments in the context of their prior beliefs about the topics being discussed.
Reposted by Cognition
kobedesender.bsky.social
"Learning to be confident: How agents learn confidence based on prediction errors"! Now out in @cognitionjournal.bsky.social led by @pierreledenmat.bsky.social

Paper: desenderlab.com/wp-content/u... Thread ↓↓↓

#AcademicSky #PsychSciSky #Neuroscience #Neuroskyence
cognitionjournal.bsky.social
"How to show that a cruel prank is worse than a war crime: Shifting scales and missing benchmarks in the study of moral judgment"

📢New paper from: @vladchituc.bsky.social, @mjcrockett.bsky.social, & Brian Scholl

www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
vladchituc.bsky.social
Thrilled to announce a new paper out this weekend in
@cognitionjournal.bsky.social.

Moral psychologists almost always use self-report scales to study moral judgment. But there's a problem: the meaning of these scales is inherently relative.

A 2 min demo (and a short thread):

1/7
cognitionjournal.bsky.social
Our studies show that people’s concepts of truth are diverse yet stable. This matters not only for philosophical debates but also for everyday discourse, because without a shared concept of truth, even perfect facts can’t guarantee agreement.
(6/7)
cognitionjournal.bsky.social
Study 2 (3 months later): People’s conceptual maps predicted how they later applied the concept of truth in a contextualized scenario—showing that conceptual scaling captures facets of the conceptual structure people draw on when applying truth.
(5/7)
cognitionjournal.bsky.social
A closer look shows many participants hold pluralistic views: their concept of truth sits between theories. The most common “blend”? correspondence + authenticity. Others are more monistic, sticking with just one theory.
(4/7)
cognitionjournal.bsky.social
At first glance, roughly half of people understand truth as correspondence with factual reality. Many others see truth as indicating authenticity or honesty. Few hold that something is true because it fits within a coherent belief system.
(3/7)
cognitionjournal.bsky.social
Study 1: Participants made thousands of triplet similarity judgments. From these, we derived a conceptual map for each participant quantifying their individual understanding of truth in relation to three central notions of truth: correspondence, coherence, and authenticity.
(2/7)
cognitionjournal.bsky.social
We often argue about what’s true, without ever asking what we mean by ”truth”. Different ideas of truth can derail a debate long before facts are discussed. In this work, we use conceptual scaling to explore how people understand truth.
(1/7)
cognitionjournal.bsky.social
By offering a systematic explanation of self-handicapping, we hope to lay the groundwork for developing effective interventions that target academic self-handicapping, helping people to realize their full potential.
cognitionjournal.bsky.social
Consistent with the theory, our experiments show that self-handicapping increases naive observers’ evaluations, but not for sophisticated observers when the actor fails. The theory also explains past experiments with different setups and methods.
cognitionjournal.bsky.social
The theory involves a naive observer who evaluates the actor’s competence, an actor who seeks to impress the naive observer through strategic self-handicapping, and a sophisticated observer who considers the actor’s decision whether to self-handicap.
cognitionjournal.bsky.social
Self-handicapping is a strategy where people deliberately impede their performance to protect perceived competence in case of failure, or enhance it in case of success. We developed a signaling theory to explain when and how it happens.
cognitionjournal.bsky.social
When do people self-handicap? We model self-handicapping in terms of rational signaling, showing how it depends on assumptions about whether observers are naive or sophisticated. More in thread!
Reposted by Cognition
felixhermans.bsky.social
(1/7)📢 New paper by Vera Hoorens, felixhermans.bsky.social, and Susanne Bruckmüller in @cognitionjournal.bsky.social : “Why Boys Cry and Don’t Cry. The Contextual-Statistical (ConStat) Approach to the Perceived Validity of Generics”. A small 🧵and link to the paper below!
cognitionjournal.bsky.social
How do background voices derail our thoughts? Our study shows that distracting words disrupt deliberate memory retrieval not necessarily by grabbing attention, but because they are processed incidentally, forcing us to suppress their meaning.
cognitionjournal.bsky.social
New paper: The moral pull of “women and children”

Authors: Anastasiia Grigoreva Crean, Stella Lourenco , & Arber Tasimi

www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
cognitionjournal.bsky.social
Children alone cannot explain the power of “women and children.” Rather, women have a moral pull of their own, which is not reducible to viewing them as mothers. That said, gender conformity and traditional gender views shape moral outrage for women.