IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0258228.html

Epistemic values and the Big Five: Personality characteristics of those who ascribe personal and moral value to epistemic rationality

Author

Listed:
  • Tomas Ståhl
  • James Turner

Abstract

People differ in how much personal importance, and moral relevance, they ascribe to epistemic rationality. These stable individual differences can be assessed using the Importance of Rationality Scale (IRS), and Moralized Rationality Scale (MRS). Furthermore, these individual differences are conceptually distinct, and associated with different cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes. However, little is known about what signifies and differentiates people who score high (vs. low) on the IRS and MRS respectively, and where these individual differences stem from. In the present research we begin to address these questions by examining how these epistemic values relate to the Big Five personality traits. Two studies consistently show that both the IRS and MRS are positively related to Openness to experience. However, only the MRS is negatively associated with Agreeableness, and only the IRS is positively associated with Conscientiousness.

Suggested Citation

  • Tomas Ståhl & James Turner, 2021. "Epistemic values and the Big Five: Personality characteristics of those who ascribe personal and moral value to epistemic rationality," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-13, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0258228
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258228
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258228
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258228&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0258228?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gordon Pennycook & James Allan Cheyne & Derek J. Koehler & Jonathan A. Fugelsang, 2020. "On the belief that beliefs should change according to evidence: Implications for conspiratorial, moral, paranormal, political, religious, and science beliefs," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(4), pages 476-498, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. F. LeRon Shults & Wesley J. Wildman, 2020. "Human Simulation and Sustainability: Ontological, Epistemological, and Ethical Reflections," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Joffrey Fuhrer & Florian Cova, 2020. "“Quick and dirty†: Intuitive cognitive style predicts trust in Didier Raoult and his hydroxychloroquine-based treatment against COVID-19," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(6), pages 889-908, November.
    3. Jastrzębski, Jan & Chuderski, Adam, 2022. "Analytic thinking outruns fluid reasoning in explaining rejection of pseudoscience, paranormal, and conspiracist beliefs," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    4. Lucas J. Dixon & Matthew J. Hornsey & Nicole Hartley & Cassandra M. Chapman & Justin P. Brienza, 2023. "The psychology of attraction to multi‐level marketing," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(3), pages 1213-1235, July.
    5. Lestari Agusalim & Muhamad Karim, 2024. "How Religiosity Affect Climate Change? A Cross-Country Analysis," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 14(1), pages 150-164, January.

    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:plo:pone00:0258228. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.