ABSTRACT
What might account for the persistent tendency for performance on reasoning tasks to covary after algorithmic limitations have been accounted for? Some clues as to the cause of these relationships are provided by an examination of the types of thinking dispositions that predicted normatives responses after computational limitations have been controlled in the Stanovich and West (1997, 1998b; Sá et al., in press) studies. It is argued in this chapter that many of these reflect tendencies toward the types of decontextualizing operations discussed in chapter 6. Consider some examples of the dimensions tapped (and example items from each) in the questionnaires used in those investigations 1 :
Willingness to postpone closure (Stanovich & West, 1997): example item = “There is nothing wrong with being undecided about many issues.”
Willingness to consider alternative opinions (Stanovich & West, 1997): example item = “A person should always consider new possibilities.”
Willingness to consider contradictory evidence (Stanovich & West, 1997): example item = “People should always take into consideration evidence that goes against their beliefs.”
Openness (NEO scale, Costa & McCrae, 1992): example item = “I believe that laws and social policies should change to reflect the needs of a changing world.”
Disposition toward absolutism (Erwin, 1983): example item = “Right and wrong never change.”
Disposition toward dogmatism (Rokeach, 1960): example item = “Of all the different philosophies that exist in the world there is probably only one that is correct.”
Disposition toward categorical thinking (Epstein & Meier, 1989): example item = “I tend to classify people as either for me or against me.”
Disposition toward counterfactual thinking (Stanovich & West, 1997): example item = “My beliefs would not have been very different if I had been raised by a different set of parents” (reverse scored).
Disposition toward belief identification (Sá et al., in press): example items = “One should disregard evidence that conflicts with your established beliefs,” “Someone who attacks my beliefs is not insulting me personally” (reverse scored).
Need for cognition (Cacioppo et al., 1996): example items = “The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me,” “It’s enough for me that something gets the job done; I don’t care how or why it works” (reverse scored).
