Do Skeptics Think More Clearly?
On this page
Are paranormal believers worse at critical thinking?
Picture two groups of people reading the same scientific paper about psychokinesis—the alleged ability to move objects with the mind. One group believes in paranormal phenomena, the other doesn't. You'd expect the believers to be less critical of the paranormal research, right? But when researchers James Alcock and Laura Otis put this assumption to the test in 1980, they discovered something that challenges our assumptions about belief and critical thinking. What they found reveals a fascinating paradox about how we process information that either supports or threatens our worldview.
Skeptics scored higher on critical thinking tests, but both groups equally critiqued paranormal research.
In 1980, as public interest in ESP and psychic powers grew, psychologists James Alcock and Laura Otis wondered whether belief in the paranormal stemmed from a lack of critical thinking skills. They recruited two groups of people—those who believed in psychic phenomena and those who rejected them—to test whether skeptics were simply better at analyzing evidence.
Believers in the paranormal showed equal critical thinking skills as skeptics when evaluating paranormal research, despite scoring lower on general critical thinking tests.
Key Findings
- Skeptics did score higher on general critical thinking tests and were less dogmatic overall.
- However, when it came to evaluating the actual research article about psychokinesis, believers were just as critical and skeptical as non-believers.
- They didn't give the paranormal research a 'free pass'—they spotted the same flaws the skeptics did.
What Is This About?
In the first study, 13 believers and 13 skeptics took two standardized tests: one measuring critical thinking skills (like evaluating arguments and evidence) and one measuring dogmatism (how rigidly someone holds to their beliefs). In the second study, 18 believers and 17 skeptics read and critiqued a research article. Half read about psychokinesis (mind influencing matter), while half read an identical article about pain tolerance. The researchers expected believers to go easier on the psychokinesis article, rating it more favorably.
Two studies comparing paranormal believers and skeptics using standardized critical thinking and dogmatism scales (Study 1), and evaluation of research articles on psychokinesis versus pain tolerance (Study 2).
Skeptics scored higher on general critical thinking and lower on dogmatism, but both groups showed equal critical evaluation of a psychokinesis research article.
How Good Is the Evidence?
Study 1 compared just 13 believers versus 13 skeptics—about the size of a small classroom. Study 2 used 35 participants total, smaller than a full school bus. While skeptics generally scored higher on critical thinking, this gap vanished when both groups evaluated specific research articles.
Skeptics argue this shows believers have generally poorer reasoning skills but can temporarily 'turn on' critical thinking. Believers might counter that the study demonstrates they evaluate evidence fairly and aren't biased toward paranormal claims. Others note that reading one article in a lab differs from real-world belief formation, where personal experiences and emotional factors carry more weight than abstract research critiques.
Mainstream: Belief in the paranormal correlates with lower general critical thinking ability but doesn't prevent objective evaluation of specific evidence. Moderate: Critical thinking is a situational skill that everyone can apply when motivated, regardless of general beliefs. Frontier: The lack of bias in Study 2 suggests paranormal belief may stem from different cognitive processes—such as interpreting ambiguous experiences differently—rather than a global deficit in reasoning.
Many assume people believe in the paranormal simply because they can't think critically. While this study found skeptics generally score higher on critical thinking tests, it also showed believers can activate critical thinking when evaluating specific claims—they're not permanently stuck in 'gullible mode.'
To settle whether believers truly lack critical thinking skills, we would need larger samples from diverse populations (not just college students), longitudinal studies tracking how beliefs form over time, and real-world measures of how people evaluate paranormal claims in daily life—not just in a lab reading one article. This study meets criteria for initial exploration but lacks the scale and ecological validity for definitive conclusions about cognitive differences.
While skeptics showed significantly higher critical thinking ability and lower dogmatism than believers, results indicated that believers and nonbelievers were equally critical of the paranormal article.
Stance: Mixed
What Does It Mean?
The most striking finding is that believers were just as harsh critics of paranormal research as the skeptics—essentially arguing against their own worldview when presented with scientific evidence. This suggests our minds might be more complex and contradictory than we imagine.
It's like assuming someone who loves organic food will automatically trust every 'organic' label they see, but discovering they actually check the ingredients list just as carefully as skeptics do—they can turn on their scrutiny when it matters.
If these results hold up in larger studies, they could reshape how we think about the relationship between belief and rationality. It might suggest that people can compartmentalize their critical thinking abilities, applying rigorous analysis to specific domains while maintaining broader belief systems. This could have profound implications for education, science communication, and understanding human cognition.
This study illustrates that general cognitive abilities (like scores on critical thinking tests) don't always predict how someone will evaluate specific evidence—context, motivation, and the specific task at hand often matter more than broad personality traits.
Understanding Terms
What This Study Claims
Findings
Paranormal believers and skeptics are equally critical when evaluating the methodological quality of a research article on psychokinesis.
moderateSkeptics are significantly less dogmatic than paranormal believers.
moderateSkeptics demonstrate significantly higher critical thinking ability than paranormal believers on standardized tests.
moderateInterpretations
Believers do not show a bias favoring pro-paranormal research when evaluating specific studies, contrary to expectations.
moderateThis summary is for general information about current research. It does not constitute medical advice. The scientific interpretation of these results is debated among researchers. If personally affected, please consult qualified professionals.