The Experts below are selected from a list of 19539 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Andrew Denovan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Latent Profile Analysis of Schizotypy and Paranormal Belief: Associations with Probabilistic Reasoning Performance
Frontiers Media S.A., 2018Co-Authors: Andrew Denovan, Kenneth Drinkwater, Neil Dagnall, Andrew ParkerAbstract:This study assessed the extent to which within-individual variation in schizotypy and paranormal belief influenced performance on Probabilistic Reasoning tasks. A convenience sample of 725 non-clinical adults completed measures assessing schizotypy (Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and Experiences; O-Life brief), belief in the paranormal (Revised Paranormal Belief Scale; RPBS) and Probabilistic Reasoning (perception of randomness, conjunction fallacy, paranormal perception of randomness, and paranormal conjunction fallacy). Latent profile analysis (LPA) identified four distinct groups: class 1, low schizotypy and low paranormal belief (43.9% of sample); class 2, moderate schizotypy and moderate paranormal belief (18.2%); class 3, moderate schizotypy (high cognitive disorganization) and low paranormal belief (29%); and class 4, moderate schizotypy and high paranormal belief (8.9%). Identification of homogeneous classes provided a nuanced understanding of the relative contribution of schizotypy and paranormal belief to differences in Probabilistic Reasoning performance. Multivariate analysis of covariance revealed that groups with lower levels of paranormal belief (classes 1 and 3) performed significantly better on perception of randomness, but not conjunction problems. Schizotypy had only a negligible effect on performance. Further analysis indicated that framing perception of randomness and conjunction problems in a paranormal context facilitated performance for all groups but class 4
-
Perception of Risk and Terrorism-Related Behavior Change: Dual Influences of Probabilistic Reasoning and Reality Testing.
Frontiers in psychology, 2017Co-Authors: Andrew Denovan, Kenneth Drinkwater, Neil Dagnall, Andrew Parker, Peter J. CloughAbstract:The present study assessed the degree to which Probabilistic Reasoning performance and thinking style influenced perception of risk and self-reported levels of terrorism-related behaviour change. A sample of 263 respondents, recruited via convenience sampling, completed a series of measures comprising Probabilistic Reasoning tasks (perception of randomness, base rate, probability, and conjunction fallacy), the Reality Testing subscale of the Inventory of Personality Organization (IPO-RT), the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale, and a terrorism-related behaviour change scale. Structural equation modelling examined three progressive models. Firstly, the Independence Model assumed that Probabilistic Reasoning, perception of risk and reality testing independently predicted terrorism-related behaviour change. The Mediation Model supposed that Probabilistic Reasoning and reality testing correlated, and indirectly predicted terrorism-related behaviour change through perception of risk. Lastly, the Dual-Influence Model proposed that Probabilistic Reasoning indirectly predicted terrorism-related behaviour change via perception of risk, independent of reality testing. Results indicated that performance on Probabilistic Reasoning tasks most strongly predicted perception of risk, and preference for an intuitive thinking style (measured by the IPO-RT) best explained terrorism-related behaviour change. The combination of perception of risk with Probabilistic Reasoning ability in the Dual-Influence Model enhanced the predictive power of the rational-analytical route, with conjunction fallacy having a significant indirect effect on terrorism-related behaviour change via perception of risk. The Dual-Influence Model possessed superior fit and reported similar predictive relations between intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational routes and terrorism-related behaviour change. The discussion critically examines these findings in relation to dual-processing frameworks. This includes considering the limitations of current operationalisations and recommendations for future research that align outcomes and subsequent work more closely to specific dual-process models.
-
Perception of Risk and Terrorism-Related Behavior Change: Dual Influences of Probabilistic Reasoning and Reality Testing
Frontiers Media S.A., 2017Co-Authors: Andrew Denovan, Kenneth Drinkwater, Neil Dagnall, Andrew Parker, Peter CloughAbstract:The present study assessed the degree to which Probabilistic Reasoning performance and thinking style influenced perception of risk and self-reported levels of terrorism-related behavior change. A sample of 263 respondents, recruited via convenience sampling, completed a series of measures comprising Probabilistic Reasoning tasks (perception of randomness, base rate, probability, and conjunction fallacy), the Reality Testing subscale of the Inventory of Personality Organization (IPO-RT), the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale, and a terrorism-related behavior change scale. Structural equation modeling examined three progressive models. Firstly, the Independence Model assumed that Probabilistic Reasoning, perception of risk and reality testing independently predicted terrorism-related behavior change. Secondly, the Mediation Model supposed that Probabilistic Reasoning and reality testing correlated, and indirectly predicted terrorism-related behavior change through perception of risk. Lastly, the Dual-Influence Model proposed that Probabilistic Reasoning indirectly predicted terrorism-related behavior change via perception of risk, independent of reality testing. Results indicated that performance on Probabilistic Reasoning tasks most strongly predicted perception of risk, and preference for an intuitive thinking style (measured by the IPO-RT) best explained terrorism-related behavior change. The combination of perception of risk with Probabilistic Reasoning ability in the Dual-Influence Model enhanced the predictive power of the analytical-rational route, with conjunction fallacy having a significant indirect effect on terrorism-related behavior change via perception of risk. The Dual-Influence Model possessed superior fit and reported similar predictive relations between intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational routes and terrorism-related behavior change. The discussion critically examines these findings in relation to dual-processing frameworks. This includes considering the limitations of current operationalisations and recommendations for future research that align outcomes and subsequent work more closely to specific dual-process models
Peter J. Clough - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Perception of Risk and Terrorism-Related Behavior Change: Dual Influences of Probabilistic Reasoning and Reality Testing.
Frontiers in psychology, 2017Co-Authors: Andrew Denovan, Kenneth Drinkwater, Neil Dagnall, Andrew Parker, Peter J. CloughAbstract:The present study assessed the degree to which Probabilistic Reasoning performance and thinking style influenced perception of risk and self-reported levels of terrorism-related behaviour change. A sample of 263 respondents, recruited via convenience sampling, completed a series of measures comprising Probabilistic Reasoning tasks (perception of randomness, base rate, probability, and conjunction fallacy), the Reality Testing subscale of the Inventory of Personality Organization (IPO-RT), the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale, and a terrorism-related behaviour change scale. Structural equation modelling examined three progressive models. Firstly, the Independence Model assumed that Probabilistic Reasoning, perception of risk and reality testing independently predicted terrorism-related behaviour change. The Mediation Model supposed that Probabilistic Reasoning and reality testing correlated, and indirectly predicted terrorism-related behaviour change through perception of risk. Lastly, the Dual-Influence Model proposed that Probabilistic Reasoning indirectly predicted terrorism-related behaviour change via perception of risk, independent of reality testing. Results indicated that performance on Probabilistic Reasoning tasks most strongly predicted perception of risk, and preference for an intuitive thinking style (measured by the IPO-RT) best explained terrorism-related behaviour change. The combination of perception of risk with Probabilistic Reasoning ability in the Dual-Influence Model enhanced the predictive power of the rational-analytical route, with conjunction fallacy having a significant indirect effect on terrorism-related behaviour change via perception of risk. The Dual-Influence Model possessed superior fit and reported similar predictive relations between intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational routes and terrorism-related behaviour change. The discussion critically examines these findings in relation to dual-processing frameworks. This includes considering the limitations of current operationalisations and recommendations for future research that align outcomes and subsequent work more closely to specific dual-process models.
Kenneth Drinkwater - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Latent Profile Analysis of Schizotypy and Paranormal Belief: Associations with Probabilistic Reasoning Performance
Frontiers Media S.A., 2018Co-Authors: Andrew Denovan, Kenneth Drinkwater, Neil Dagnall, Andrew ParkerAbstract:This study assessed the extent to which within-individual variation in schizotypy and paranormal belief influenced performance on Probabilistic Reasoning tasks. A convenience sample of 725 non-clinical adults completed measures assessing schizotypy (Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and Experiences; O-Life brief), belief in the paranormal (Revised Paranormal Belief Scale; RPBS) and Probabilistic Reasoning (perception of randomness, conjunction fallacy, paranormal perception of randomness, and paranormal conjunction fallacy). Latent profile analysis (LPA) identified four distinct groups: class 1, low schizotypy and low paranormal belief (43.9% of sample); class 2, moderate schizotypy and moderate paranormal belief (18.2%); class 3, moderate schizotypy (high cognitive disorganization) and low paranormal belief (29%); and class 4, moderate schizotypy and high paranormal belief (8.9%). Identification of homogeneous classes provided a nuanced understanding of the relative contribution of schizotypy and paranormal belief to differences in Probabilistic Reasoning performance. Multivariate analysis of covariance revealed that groups with lower levels of paranormal belief (classes 1 and 3) performed significantly better on perception of randomness, but not conjunction problems. Schizotypy had only a negligible effect on performance. Further analysis indicated that framing perception of randomness and conjunction problems in a paranormal context facilitated performance for all groups but class 4
-
Perception of Risk and Terrorism-Related Behavior Change: Dual Influences of Probabilistic Reasoning and Reality Testing.
Frontiers in psychology, 2017Co-Authors: Andrew Denovan, Kenneth Drinkwater, Neil Dagnall, Andrew Parker, Peter J. CloughAbstract:The present study assessed the degree to which Probabilistic Reasoning performance and thinking style influenced perception of risk and self-reported levels of terrorism-related behaviour change. A sample of 263 respondents, recruited via convenience sampling, completed a series of measures comprising Probabilistic Reasoning tasks (perception of randomness, base rate, probability, and conjunction fallacy), the Reality Testing subscale of the Inventory of Personality Organization (IPO-RT), the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale, and a terrorism-related behaviour change scale. Structural equation modelling examined three progressive models. Firstly, the Independence Model assumed that Probabilistic Reasoning, perception of risk and reality testing independently predicted terrorism-related behaviour change. The Mediation Model supposed that Probabilistic Reasoning and reality testing correlated, and indirectly predicted terrorism-related behaviour change through perception of risk. Lastly, the Dual-Influence Model proposed that Probabilistic Reasoning indirectly predicted terrorism-related behaviour change via perception of risk, independent of reality testing. Results indicated that performance on Probabilistic Reasoning tasks most strongly predicted perception of risk, and preference for an intuitive thinking style (measured by the IPO-RT) best explained terrorism-related behaviour change. The combination of perception of risk with Probabilistic Reasoning ability in the Dual-Influence Model enhanced the predictive power of the rational-analytical route, with conjunction fallacy having a significant indirect effect on terrorism-related behaviour change via perception of risk. The Dual-Influence Model possessed superior fit and reported similar predictive relations between intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational routes and terrorism-related behaviour change. The discussion critically examines these findings in relation to dual-processing frameworks. This includes considering the limitations of current operationalisations and recommendations for future research that align outcomes and subsequent work more closely to specific dual-process models.
-
Perception of Risk and Terrorism-Related Behavior Change: Dual Influences of Probabilistic Reasoning and Reality Testing
Frontiers Media S.A., 2017Co-Authors: Andrew Denovan, Kenneth Drinkwater, Neil Dagnall, Andrew Parker, Peter CloughAbstract:The present study assessed the degree to which Probabilistic Reasoning performance and thinking style influenced perception of risk and self-reported levels of terrorism-related behavior change. A sample of 263 respondents, recruited via convenience sampling, completed a series of measures comprising Probabilistic Reasoning tasks (perception of randomness, base rate, probability, and conjunction fallacy), the Reality Testing subscale of the Inventory of Personality Organization (IPO-RT), the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale, and a terrorism-related behavior change scale. Structural equation modeling examined three progressive models. Firstly, the Independence Model assumed that Probabilistic Reasoning, perception of risk and reality testing independently predicted terrorism-related behavior change. Secondly, the Mediation Model supposed that Probabilistic Reasoning and reality testing correlated, and indirectly predicted terrorism-related behavior change through perception of risk. Lastly, the Dual-Influence Model proposed that Probabilistic Reasoning indirectly predicted terrorism-related behavior change via perception of risk, independent of reality testing. Results indicated that performance on Probabilistic Reasoning tasks most strongly predicted perception of risk, and preference for an intuitive thinking style (measured by the IPO-RT) best explained terrorism-related behavior change. The combination of perception of risk with Probabilistic Reasoning ability in the Dual-Influence Model enhanced the predictive power of the analytical-rational route, with conjunction fallacy having a significant indirect effect on terrorism-related behavior change via perception of risk. The Dual-Influence Model possessed superior fit and reported similar predictive relations between intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational routes and terrorism-related behavior change. The discussion critically examines these findings in relation to dual-processing frameworks. This includes considering the limitations of current operationalisations and recommendations for future research that align outcomes and subsequent work more closely to specific dual-process models
Neil Dagnall - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Latent Profile Analysis of Schizotypy and Paranormal Belief: Associations with Probabilistic Reasoning Performance
Frontiers Media S.A., 2018Co-Authors: Andrew Denovan, Kenneth Drinkwater, Neil Dagnall, Andrew ParkerAbstract:This study assessed the extent to which within-individual variation in schizotypy and paranormal belief influenced performance on Probabilistic Reasoning tasks. A convenience sample of 725 non-clinical adults completed measures assessing schizotypy (Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and Experiences; O-Life brief), belief in the paranormal (Revised Paranormal Belief Scale; RPBS) and Probabilistic Reasoning (perception of randomness, conjunction fallacy, paranormal perception of randomness, and paranormal conjunction fallacy). Latent profile analysis (LPA) identified four distinct groups: class 1, low schizotypy and low paranormal belief (43.9% of sample); class 2, moderate schizotypy and moderate paranormal belief (18.2%); class 3, moderate schizotypy (high cognitive disorganization) and low paranormal belief (29%); and class 4, moderate schizotypy and high paranormal belief (8.9%). Identification of homogeneous classes provided a nuanced understanding of the relative contribution of schizotypy and paranormal belief to differences in Probabilistic Reasoning performance. Multivariate analysis of covariance revealed that groups with lower levels of paranormal belief (classes 1 and 3) performed significantly better on perception of randomness, but not conjunction problems. Schizotypy had only a negligible effect on performance. Further analysis indicated that framing perception of randomness and conjunction problems in a paranormal context facilitated performance for all groups but class 4
-
Perception of Risk and Terrorism-Related Behavior Change: Dual Influences of Probabilistic Reasoning and Reality Testing.
Frontiers in psychology, 2017Co-Authors: Andrew Denovan, Kenneth Drinkwater, Neil Dagnall, Andrew Parker, Peter J. CloughAbstract:The present study assessed the degree to which Probabilistic Reasoning performance and thinking style influenced perception of risk and self-reported levels of terrorism-related behaviour change. A sample of 263 respondents, recruited via convenience sampling, completed a series of measures comprising Probabilistic Reasoning tasks (perception of randomness, base rate, probability, and conjunction fallacy), the Reality Testing subscale of the Inventory of Personality Organization (IPO-RT), the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale, and a terrorism-related behaviour change scale. Structural equation modelling examined three progressive models. Firstly, the Independence Model assumed that Probabilistic Reasoning, perception of risk and reality testing independently predicted terrorism-related behaviour change. The Mediation Model supposed that Probabilistic Reasoning and reality testing correlated, and indirectly predicted terrorism-related behaviour change through perception of risk. Lastly, the Dual-Influence Model proposed that Probabilistic Reasoning indirectly predicted terrorism-related behaviour change via perception of risk, independent of reality testing. Results indicated that performance on Probabilistic Reasoning tasks most strongly predicted perception of risk, and preference for an intuitive thinking style (measured by the IPO-RT) best explained terrorism-related behaviour change. The combination of perception of risk with Probabilistic Reasoning ability in the Dual-Influence Model enhanced the predictive power of the rational-analytical route, with conjunction fallacy having a significant indirect effect on terrorism-related behaviour change via perception of risk. The Dual-Influence Model possessed superior fit and reported similar predictive relations between intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational routes and terrorism-related behaviour change. The discussion critically examines these findings in relation to dual-processing frameworks. This includes considering the limitations of current operationalisations and recommendations for future research that align outcomes and subsequent work more closely to specific dual-process models.
-
Perception of Risk and Terrorism-Related Behavior Change: Dual Influences of Probabilistic Reasoning and Reality Testing
Frontiers Media S.A., 2017Co-Authors: Andrew Denovan, Kenneth Drinkwater, Neil Dagnall, Andrew Parker, Peter CloughAbstract:The present study assessed the degree to which Probabilistic Reasoning performance and thinking style influenced perception of risk and self-reported levels of terrorism-related behavior change. A sample of 263 respondents, recruited via convenience sampling, completed a series of measures comprising Probabilistic Reasoning tasks (perception of randomness, base rate, probability, and conjunction fallacy), the Reality Testing subscale of the Inventory of Personality Organization (IPO-RT), the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale, and a terrorism-related behavior change scale. Structural equation modeling examined three progressive models. Firstly, the Independence Model assumed that Probabilistic Reasoning, perception of risk and reality testing independently predicted terrorism-related behavior change. Secondly, the Mediation Model supposed that Probabilistic Reasoning and reality testing correlated, and indirectly predicted terrorism-related behavior change through perception of risk. Lastly, the Dual-Influence Model proposed that Probabilistic Reasoning indirectly predicted terrorism-related behavior change via perception of risk, independent of reality testing. Results indicated that performance on Probabilistic Reasoning tasks most strongly predicted perception of risk, and preference for an intuitive thinking style (measured by the IPO-RT) best explained terrorism-related behavior change. The combination of perception of risk with Probabilistic Reasoning ability in the Dual-Influence Model enhanced the predictive power of the analytical-rational route, with conjunction fallacy having a significant indirect effect on terrorism-related behavior change via perception of risk. The Dual-Influence Model possessed superior fit and reported similar predictive relations between intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational routes and terrorism-related behavior change. The discussion critically examines these findings in relation to dual-processing frameworks. This includes considering the limitations of current operationalisations and recommendations for future research that align outcomes and subsequent work more closely to specific dual-process models
Daniel N Osherson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
new evidence for distinct right and left brain systems for deductive versus Probabilistic Reasoning
Cerebral Cortex, 2001Co-Authors: Lawrence M Parsons, Daniel N OshersonAbstract:: Deductive and Probabilistic Reasoning are central to cognition but the functional neuroanatomy underlying them is poorly understood. The present study contrasted these two kinds of Reasoning via positron emission tomography. Relying on changes in instruction and psychological 'set', deductive versus Probabilistic Reasoning was induced using identical stimuli. The stimuli were arguments in propositional calculus not readily solved via mental diagrams. Probabilistic Reasoning activated mostly left brain areas whereas deductive activated mostly right. Deduction activated areas near right brain homologues of left language areas in middle temporal lobe, inferior frontal cortex and basal ganglia, as well as right amygdala, but not spatial-visual areas. Right hemisphere activations in the deduction task cannot be explained by spill-over from overtaxed, left language areas. Probabilistic Reasoning was mostly associated with left hemispheric areas in inferior frontal, posterior cingulate, parahippocampal, medial temporal, and superior and medial prefrontal cortices. The foregoing regions are implicated in recalling and evaluating a range of world knowledge, operations required during Probabilistic thought. The findings confirm that deduction and induction are distinct processes, consistent with psychological theories enforcing their partial separation. The results also suggest that, except for statement decoding, deduction is largely independent of language, and that some forms of logical thinking are non-diagrammatic.
-
distinct brain loci in deductive versus Probabilistic Reasoning
Neuropsychologia, 1998Co-Authors: Daniel N Osherson, Daniela Perani, Stefano F Cappa, Tatiana T Schnur, F Grassi, Ferruccio FazioAbstract:Deductive versus Probabilistic inferences are distinguished by normative theories, but it is unknown whether these two forms of Reasoning engage similar cerebral loci. To clarify the matter, positron emission tomography was applied during deductive versus Probabilistic Reasoning tasks, using identical stimuli. Compared to a language comprehension task involving the same stimuli, both Probabilistic and deductive Reasoning increased regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) bilaterally in the mesial frontal region and in the cerebellum. In the direct comparison, Probabilistic Reasoning increased rCBF in left dorsolateral frontal regions, whereas deductive Reasoning enhanced rCBF in associative occipital and parietal regions, with a right hemispheric prevalence. The results suggest that Reasoning about syllogisms engages distinct brain mechanisms, depending on the intention to evaluate them deductively versus Probabilistically. © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
