Motivated numeracy and active reasoning in a Western European sample

Paul Connor,Nava Tintarev,Emily Sullivan,Mark Alfano

doi:10.1017/bpp.2020.32

Abstract

AbstractRecent work by Kahan et al. (2017) on the psychology of motivated numeracy in the context of intracultural disagreement suggests that people are less likely to employ their capabilities when the evidence runs contrary to their political ideology. This research has so far been carried out primarily in the USA regarding the liberal–conservative divide over gun control regulation. In this paper, we present the results of a modified replication that included an active reasoning intervention with Western European participants regarding both the hierarchy–egalitarianism and individualism–collectivism divides over immigration policy (n = 746; considerably less than the preregistration sample size). We reproduce the motivated numeracy effect, though we do not find evidence of increased polarization of high-numeracy participants.

Highlights

People disagree about key societal issues in the face of compelling scientific evidence
When the topic was related to their political identities, high-numeracy liberals tended to successfully reason about accuracy only when the evidence suggested that gun control is effective, whereas high-numeracy conservatives tended to successfully reason about accuracy only when the evidence suggested that gun control is not effective
It may not be surprising that responses became politically polarized when answering questions about a gun control ban, but what was remarkable in Kahan et al (2017) was that polarization was higher among high-numeracy individuals than among low-numeracy individuals

Summary

Introduction

People disagree about key societal issues in the face of compelling scientific evidence Such disagreements have significant societal impacts with regard to decision-making (e.g., whether to vaccinate children), and with regard to political polarization between groups. It may not be surprising that responses became politically polarized when answering questions about a gun control ban, but what was remarkable in Kahan et al (2017) was that polarization was higher among high-numeracy individuals than among low-numeracy individuals. This suggests that the quantitative reasoning skills of participants with high numeracy skills can become more identity protective, which portends starker disagreement between more numerate partisans than between less numerate partisans

Objectives

Methods

Results