Beliefs on Trial: Evidence vs. Gut Feeling
On this page
Does believing in evidence predict paranormal skepticism?
Imagine two people reading the same news article about a controversial topic. One person thinks 'I should change my mind if the evidence contradicts what I believe,' while the other thinks 'My core beliefs shouldn't waver based on new information.' Researchers wondered: Does this fundamental difference in how people view evidence actually predict what they end up believing about everything from psychic abilities to climate change? They surveyed nearly 1,700 people and discovered something remarkable about the hidden architecture of human belief.
People who value evidence-based thinking are more skeptical of ESP.
Researchers wanted to understand why some people believe in extrasensory perception while others don't. They suspected it might have to do with how much people think beliefs should change when faced with contradicting evidence. Across three studies, they surveyed nearly 1,700 people about both their thinking style and their paranormal beliefs.
How open you are to changing beliefs based on evidence strongly predicts what you actually believe across nearly every domain of human knowledge.
Key Findings
- People who strongly believed that beliefs should follow evidence were much more skeptical about ESP and other paranormal claims.
- This pattern held across different types of beliefs - religious, political, and scientific.
- Interestingly, this relationship was stronger among liberals than conservatives, suggesting that political worldview affects how thinking style translates into specific beliefs.
What Is This About?
Participants first answered questions about whether they think beliefs and opinions should change when new evidence contradicts them. Then they indicated their beliefs about various topics including ESP, telepathy, and other paranormal phenomena. The researchers also asked about political views, religious beliefs, and attitudes toward science. They wanted to see if people's general approach to evidence would predict their specific paranormal beliefs.
Participants completed an 8-item scale measuring their belief that opinions and beliefs should change according to evidence, then reported their beliefs on various topics including paranormal phenomena.
People who strongly believed beliefs should follow evidence were more skeptical of extrasensory perception and other paranormal claims, with this pattern being stronger among political liberals than conservatives.
How Good Is the Evidence?
With 1,692 participants across three studies, this represents a substantial sample size - roughly equivalent to surveying every resident of a small town to understand the relationship between thinking styles and beliefs.
This survey study used a large sample (1,692 participants) across three separate studies from two different participant sources, which strengthens confidence in the findings. However, it was not pre-registered, used no blinding (not applicable for surveys), and relied on self-reported beliefs rather than controlled testing. The study was published in a reputable decision-making journal and has been well-cited (137 citations). The correlational design means it cannot establish causation between thinking styles and beliefs.
The study relies on self-reported measures and correlational data, making causal inferences difficult. The political asymmetry in AOT-E effects suggests potential ideological biases in how evidence evaluation is conceptualized or measured. The cross-sectional design cannot establish whether meta-beliefs about evidence cause specific beliefs or vice versa.
Mainstream: This study confirms that paranormal beliefs stem from poor critical thinking and resistance to evidence-based reasoning. Moderate: The research reveals interesting patterns about belief formation, though the relationship between thinking style and specific beliefs is complex and influenced by cultural factors. Frontier: While the correlations are interesting, they don't address whether some paranormal phenomena might be real but poorly understood by current scientific methods.
This study doesn't test whether ESP actually exists - it examines the psychological factors that influence whether people believe in it. The research is about belief patterns, not paranormal abilities themselves.
To settle questions about paranormal beliefs and thinking styles, we'd need longitudinal studies tracking how beliefs change over time, experimental interventions testing whether teaching critical thinking reduces paranormal beliefs, and cross-cultural replication. This study meets the replication criterion with three separate studies and provides a good foundation, but cannot establish causation due to its correlational design.
The belief that beliefs should change according to evidence was robustly associated with political liberalism, the rejection of traditional moral values, the acceptance of science, and skepticism about religious, paranormal, and conspiratorial claims.
Stance: Skeptical
What Does It Mean?
The researchers discovered what might be a 'master key' to human belief – a single attitude about evidence that unlocks predictions about what someone believes across dozens of completely different topics, from ghosts to global warming.
Think about how you react when someone presents evidence that contradicts something you believe - maybe about a health claim or political issue. This study suggests that people who are generally open to changing their minds based on evidence are also more likely to be skeptical when someone claims they can read minds or predict the future.
Correlation doesn't equal causation - this study shows thinking styles and paranormal beliefs are related, but can't prove that one causes the other. Both might be influenced by deeper personality traits or cultural factors.
Understanding Terms
What This Study Claims
Findings
Actively open-minded thinking about evidence (AOT-E) correlates negatively with beliefs in extrasensory perception
moderateThe relationship between evidence-based thinking and paranormal skepticism is stronger among political liberals than conservatives
moderateInterpretations
Meta-beliefs about when beliefs should change are important factors in understanding specific beliefs about paranormal phenomena
moderateImplications
Meta-beliefs about evidence evaluation should be incorporated into socio-cognitive theories of belief
weakThis 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.