REFF - Faculty of Philosophy Repository
University of Belgrade - Faculty of Philosophy
    • English
    • Српски
    • Српски (Serbia)
  • English 
    • English
    • Serbian (Cyrillic)
    • Serbian (Latin)
  • Login
View Item 
  •   REFF
  • Psihologija / Psychology
  • Radovi istraživača / Researcher's publications - Odeljenje za psihologiju
  • View Item
  •   REFF
  • Psihologija / Psychology
  • Radovi istraživača / Researcher's publications - Odeljenje za psihologiju
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Thinking Inconsistently: Development and Validation of an Instrument for Assessing Proneness to Doublethink

Authorized Users Only
2021
Authors
Petrović, M.B.
Žeželj, Iris
Article (Published version)
Metadata
Show full item record
Abstract
People tend to simultaneously accept mutually exclusive beliefs. If they are generally prone to tolerate inconsistencies, irrespective of their content, we say they are prone to doublethink. We developed a measure to capture individual differences in this tendency and demonstrated its construct and predictive validity across two studies. In Study 1, participants (N = 240) filled in the doublethink scale, the rational/intuitive inventory, and three measures of conspiratorial beliefs (conspiracy mentality, belief in specific and contradictory conspiracies). Doublethink was meaningfully related to all measured variables and was predictive of all conspiratorial beliefs over and above rational/intuitive thinking styles. In Study 2 (N = 149), we included the need for cognition and preference for consistency in the predictor set alongside doublethink, while the criterion set remained the same. Once again, doublethink related in an expected way to other measured variables and was predictive of... belief in conspiracy theories after accounting for the effects of need for cognition and preference for consistency. We discuss the properties of the scale and how it relates to other consistency measures, and offer two ways to conceptualize doublethink: as a lack of metacognitive ability to spot inconsistencies or as a thinking style that easily accommodates inconsistent beliefs.

Keywords:
thinking styles / inconsistent beliefs / doublethink / conspiratorial beliefs
Source:
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 2021
Publisher:
  • Hogrefe Publishing GmbH

DOI: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000645

ISSN: 1015-5759

Scopus: 2-s2.0-85113776241
[ Google Scholar ]
5
URI
http://reff.f.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/3264
Collections
  • Radovi istraživača / Researcher's publications - Odeljenje za psihologiju
Institution/Community
Psihologija / Psychology
TY  - JOUR
AU  - Petrović, M.B.
AU  - Žeželj, Iris
PY  - 2021
UR  - http://reff.f.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/3264
AB  - People tend to simultaneously accept mutually exclusive beliefs. If they are generally prone to tolerate inconsistencies, irrespective of their content, we say they are prone to doublethink. We developed a measure to capture individual differences in this tendency and demonstrated its construct and predictive validity across two studies. In Study 1, participants (N = 240) filled in the doublethink scale, the rational/intuitive inventory, and three measures of conspiratorial beliefs (conspiracy mentality, belief in specific and contradictory conspiracies). Doublethink was meaningfully related to all measured variables and was predictive of all conspiratorial beliefs over and above rational/intuitive thinking styles. In Study 2 (N = 149), we included the need for cognition and preference for consistency in the predictor set alongside doublethink, while the criterion set remained the same. Once again, doublethink related in an expected way to other measured variables and was predictive of belief in conspiracy theories after accounting for the effects of need for cognition and preference for consistency. We discuss the properties of the scale and how it relates to other consistency measures, and offer two ways to conceptualize doublethink: as a lack of metacognitive ability to spot inconsistencies or as a thinking style that easily accommodates inconsistent beliefs.
PB  - Hogrefe Publishing GmbH
T2  - European Journal of Psychological Assessment
T1  - Thinking Inconsistently: Development and Validation of an Instrument for Assessing Proneness to Doublethink
DO  - 10.1027/1015-5759/a000645
ER  - 
@article{
author = "Petrović, M.B. and Žeželj, Iris",
year = "2021",
abstract = "People tend to simultaneously accept mutually exclusive beliefs. If they are generally prone to tolerate inconsistencies, irrespective of their content, we say they are prone to doublethink. We developed a measure to capture individual differences in this tendency and demonstrated its construct and predictive validity across two studies. In Study 1, participants (N = 240) filled in the doublethink scale, the rational/intuitive inventory, and three measures of conspiratorial beliefs (conspiracy mentality, belief in specific and contradictory conspiracies). Doublethink was meaningfully related to all measured variables and was predictive of all conspiratorial beliefs over and above rational/intuitive thinking styles. In Study 2 (N = 149), we included the need for cognition and preference for consistency in the predictor set alongside doublethink, while the criterion set remained the same. Once again, doublethink related in an expected way to other measured variables and was predictive of belief in conspiracy theories after accounting for the effects of need for cognition and preference for consistency. We discuss the properties of the scale and how it relates to other consistency measures, and offer two ways to conceptualize doublethink: as a lack of metacognitive ability to spot inconsistencies or as a thinking style that easily accommodates inconsistent beliefs.",
publisher = "Hogrefe Publishing GmbH",
journal = "European Journal of Psychological Assessment",
title = "Thinking Inconsistently: Development and Validation of an Instrument for Assessing Proneness to Doublethink",
doi = "10.1027/1015-5759/a000645"
}
Petrović, M.B.,& Žeželj, I.. (2021). Thinking Inconsistently: Development and Validation of an Instrument for Assessing Proneness to Doublethink. in European Journal of Psychological Assessment
Hogrefe Publishing GmbH..
https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000645
Petrović M, Žeželj I. Thinking Inconsistently: Development and Validation of an Instrument for Assessing Proneness to Doublethink. in European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2021;.
doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000645 .
Petrović, M.B., Žeželj, Iris, "Thinking Inconsistently: Development and Validation of an Instrument for Assessing Proneness to Doublethink" in European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2021),
https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000645 . .

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
About REFF | Send Feedback

OpenAIRERCUB
 

 

All of DSpaceInstitutions/communitiesAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis institutionAuthorsTitlesSubjects

Statistics

View Usage Statistics

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
About REFF | Send Feedback

OpenAIRERCUB