Paranormal belief and susceptibility to the conjunction fallacy

Abstract

Numerous studies have shown paranormal believers misperceive randomness and are poor at judging probability. Despite the obvious relevance to many types of alleged paranormal phenomena, no one has examined whether believers are more susceptible to the 'conjunction fallacy'; that is to misperceiving co-occurring (conjunct) events as being more likely than singular (constituent) events alone. The present study examines believer vs. non-believer differences in conjunction errors for both paranormal and non-paranormal events presented as either a probability or a frequency estimation task. As expected, believers made more conjunction errors than non-believers. This was true for both event types, with both groups making fewer errors for paranormal than for non-paranormal events. Surprisingly, the response format (probability vs. frequency) had little impact. Results are discussed in relation to paranormal believers' susceptibility to the conjunction fallacy and more generally, to their propensity for probabilistic reasoning biases.

Paranormal psychic believers and skeptics: a large-scale test of the cognitive differences hypothesis

“…In general, this research on psychic beliefs is consistent with studies linking other kinds of paranormal beliefs to less analytic or critical thinking (see Gervais & Norenzayan, 2012;Pennycook, Cheryne, Sleli, Koehler, & Fugelsang, 2012), including less critical evaluation of hypothetical arguments (Stanovich & West, 1998;Svedholm & Lindeman, 2012) or an increased likelihood of endorsing conspiracy theories that most people reject based on careful scrutiny of the evidence (Bruder, Haffke, Neave, Nouripanah, & Imhoff, 2013;Lobato, Mendoza, Sims, & Chin, 2014). Although group differences in analytical thinking and logic tasks have not always been observed (compare Dagnall, Drinkwater, Parker, & Rowley, 2014, to Rogers, Davis, & Fisk, 2009, these represent some of the most reliable cognitive difference between paranormal believers and skeptics observed to date.…”

“…Krummenacher, Mohr, Haker, & Brugger, 2010;Rogers et al, 2009;Watt & Wiseman, 2002). Overall we found evidence that skeptics outperformed believers on four measures that require some form of analytical thinking: (1) the logic subscale of the Shipley Institute of Learning Scale, which required them to complete patterns of words, letters, and numbers; (2) the remote associations task, which required the identification of a nonpresented word that was related to three presented words; (3) the rejection of conspiracies on the conspiracy questionnaire, suggesting that skeptics engage in more critical or analytical thinking about these kinds of conspiracies than do believers; and (4) the argument evaluation task, which requires critical thinking about the quality of arguments made during a hypothetical debate.…”

Paranormal belief and the conjunction fallacy: Controlling for temporal relatedness and potential surprise differentials in component events

“…Overall, paranormal believers were just as prone to making conjunction errors as non-believers. Rogers, Davis, and Fisk (2009) have since criticised this study on several grounds. Firstly, it sampled psychology undergraduates who are likely to have some knowledge of probability theory.…”

“…Finally, it utilised a single conjunction event which had little relevance to ostensibly paranormal phenomena. In response, Rogers et al (2009) examined paranormal believers' susceptibility to the conjunction fallacy by creating a series of 16 brief conjunction vignettes incorporating either an ostensibly paranormal or a non-paranormal event. In each case, participants were asked to estimate the likelihood of each component and their conjunction occurring.…”

The Experience of Coincidence: An Integrated Psychological and Neurocognitive Perspective

“…Interestingly, in the same study it was found that the tendency to avoid semantically related guesses was associated to a stronger belief in extrasensory perception. Finally, it has been reported that paranormal believers show fallacies in probabilistic reasoning task and tend to underestimate the likelihood of chance events (Rogers et al 2009). In addition, paranormal believers are more prone to reporting frequent experiences of coincidence during their life (Bressan 2002).…”