IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v10y2015i4p314-331_3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reflective liberals and intuitive conservatives: A look at the Cognitive Reflection Test and ideology

Author

Listed:
  • Deppe, Kristen D.
  • Gonzalez, Frank J.
  • Neiman, Jayme L.
  • Jacobs, Carly
  • Pahlke, Jackson
  • Smith, Kevin B.
  • Hibbing, John R.

Abstract

Prior research finds that liberals and conservatives process information differently. Predispositions toward intuitive versus reflective thinking may help explain this individual level variation. There have been few direct tests of this hypothesis and the results from the handful of studies that do exist are contradictory. Here we report the results of a series of studies using the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) to investigate inclinations to be reflective and political orientation. We find a relationship between thinking style and political orientation and that these effects are particularly concentrated on social attitudes. We also find it harder to manipulate intuitive and reflective thinking than a number of prominent studies suggest. Priming manipulations used to induce reflection and intuition in published articles repeatedly fail in our studies. We conclude that conservatives—more specifically, social conservatives—tend to be dispositionally less reflective, social liberals tend to be dispositionally more reflective, and that the relationship between reflection and intuition and political attitudes may be more resistant to easy manipulation than existing research would suggest.

Suggested Citation

  • Deppe, Kristen D. & Gonzalez, Frank J. & Neiman, Jayme L. & Jacobs, Carly & Pahlke, Jackson & Smith, Kevin B. & Hibbing, John R., 2015. "Reflective liberals and intuitive conservatives: A look at the Cognitive Reflection Test and ideology," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(4), pages 314-331, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:4:p:314-331_3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500005131/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:4:p:314-331_3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.