reasoning
Definition
Reasoning refers to the cognitive process by which individuals evaluate evidence and generate justifications for their judgments about the credibility of information sources. Two competing accounts describe how this process may differ across belief groups: the Miserly Hypothesis, which holds that believers of implausible claims expend less cognitive effort than non-believers, and the Information Preference Hypothesis, which proposes that differences arise not from effort but from divergent standards for what counts as acceptable evidence. Across two studies comparing Fringe and Mainstream believers, participants who endorsed implausible claims consistently produced fewer normative, present-relevant justifications when evaluating expert reports, while relying more on self-generated, subjective assumptions. The evidence for reduced effort was inconsistent across studies, supporting the view that misinformation belief reflects an alternative epistemic framework rather than simple cognitive laziness.
Sources: Robson et al. (2024)
Related Terms
- misinformation (1 shared article)
- content analysis (1 shared article)
- conspiracy theories (1 shared article)
- epistemically suspect beliefs (1 shared article)
Applications
Reasoning and Misinformation Belief
Fringe believers, defined as those who endorse implausible claims contradicted by scientific consensus, differ from Mainstream believers in the type rather than consistently the quantity of justifications they produce when evaluating expert evidence. They provide significantly fewer justifications grounded in normative criteria such as an expert's field or consistency, and are more likely to substitute objective evidence with self-generated opinions. This pattern held across two independent studies using forensic and medical expert contexts.
Sources: Robson et al. (2024)
Reasoning and Evidence Evaluation
Evidence evaluation tasks that asked participants to rate and explain the persuasiveness of high- or low-quality expert reports revealed that Fringe and Mainstream believers were equally capable of distinguishing evidence quality in their ratings. However, the open-ended justifications they provided diverged systematically, with Fringe believers drawing less on the expert's credentials or the internal consistency of the report.
Sources: Robson et al. (2024)
