Browsing by Author "Littrell, Shane"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

Not so fast: Individual differences in impulsiveness are only a modest predictor of cognitive reflection.
(Elsevier, 2020) Littrell, Shane; Fugelsang, Jonathan; Risko, Evan F.
The extent to which a person engages in reflective thinking while problem-solving is often measured using the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT; Frederick, 2005). Some past research has attributed poorer performance on the CRT to impulsiveness, which is consistent with the close conceptual relation between Type I processing and dispositional impulsiveness (and the putative relation between a tendency to engage in Type I processing and poor performance on the CRT). However, existing research has been mixed on whether such a relation exists. To address this ambiguity, we report two large sample size studies examining the relation between impulsiveness and CRT performance. Unlike previous studies, we use a number of different measures of impulsiveness, as well as measures of cognitive ability and analytic thinking style. Overall, impulsiveness is clearly related to CRT performance at the bivariate level. However, once cognitive ability and analytic thinking style are controlled, these relations become small and, in some cases, non- significant. Thus, dispositional impulsiveness, in and of itself, is not a strong predictor of CRT performance.
Overconfidently Underthinking: Narcissism negatively predicts Cognitive Reflection
(Taylor & Francis, 2020) Littrell, Shane; Fugelsang, Jonathan; Risko, Evan F.
There exists a large body of work examining individual differences in the propensity to engage in reflective thinking processes. However, there is a distinct lack of empirical research examining the role of dispositional factors in these differences and understanding these associations could provide valuable insight into decision-making. Here we examine whether individual differences in cognitive reflection are related to narcissism (excessive self-focused attention) and impulsiveness (trait-based lack of inhibitory control). Participants across three studies completed measures of narcissism, impulsiveness and cognitive reflection. Results indicate that grandiose and vulnerable narcissists differ in their performance on problem-solving tasks (i.e., CRT) and preferences for intuitive thinking, as well as the degree to which they reflect on and understand their own thoughts and enjoy cognitively effortful activities. Additionally, though impulsiveness was significantly related to self-report measures of cognitive reflection (i.e., metacognitive reflection, metacognitive insight, and Need for Cognition), it showed no association with a behavioural measure of cognitive reflection (i.e., CRT scores). Our results suggest that certain individual differences in dispositional and personality characteristics may play important roles in the extent to which individuals engage in certain forms of reflective thinking.
The Bullshitting Frequency Scale: Development and psychometric properties
(The British Psychological Society, 2020) Littrell, Shane; Risko, Evan F.; Fugelsang, Jonathan A.
Recent psychological research has identified important individual differences associated with receptivity to bullshit, which has greatly enhanced our understanding of the processes behind susceptibility to pseudo-profound or otherwise misleading information. However, the bulk of this research attention has focused on cognitive and dispositional factors related to bullshit (the product), while largely overlooking the influences behind bullshitting (the act). Here, we present results from four studies (focusing on the construction and validation of a new, reliable scale measuring the frequency with which individuals engage in two types of bullshitting (persuasive and evasive) in everyday situations. Overall, bullshitting frequency was negatively associated with sincerity, honesty, cognitive ability, open-minded cognition, and self-regard. Additionally, the Bullshitting Frequency Scale was found to reliably measure constructs that are: 1) distinct from lying, and; 2) significantly related to performance on overclaiming and social decision tasks. These results represent an important step forward by demonstrating the utility of the Bullshitting Frequency Scale as well as highlighting certain individual differences that may play important roles in the extent to which individuals engage in everyday bullshitting.