Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Vigilant conservatism in evaluating communicated information
Yale Univ, Dept Psychol, New Haven, CT USA..
Uppsala University, Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study (SCAS). Lund Univ, Cognit Sci, Lund, Sweden.
Lund Univ, Cognit Sci, Lund, Sweden..
CNRS, Inst Sci Cognit Marc Jeannerod, Bron, France..
2018 (English)In: PLoS ONE, ISSN 1932-6203, E-ISSN 1932-6203, Vol. 13, no 1, article id e0188825Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In the absence of other information, people put more weight on their own opinion than on the opinion of others: they are conservative. Several proximal mechanisms have been suggested to account for this finding. One of these mechanisms is that people cannot access reasons for other people's opinions, but they can access the reasons for their own opinions-whether they are the actual reasons that led them to hold the opinions (rational access to reasons), or post-hoc constructions (biased access to reasons). In four experiments, participants were asked to provide an opinion, and then faced with another participant's opinion and asked if they wanted to revise their initial opinion. Some questions were manipulated so that the advice participants were receiving was in fact their own opinion, while what they thought was their own opinion was in fact not. In all experiments, the participants were consistently biased towards what they thought was their own opinion, showing that conservativeness cannot be explained by rational access to reasons, which should have favored the advice. One experiment revealed that conservativeness was not decreased under time pressure, suggesting that biased access to reasons is an unlikely explanation for conservativeness. The experiments also suggest that repetition plays a role in advice taking, with repeated opinions being granted more weight than non-fluent opinions. Our results are not consistent with any of the established proximal explanations for conservatism. Instead, we suggest an ultimate explanation-vigilant conservatism-that sees conservatism as adaptive since receivers should be wary of senders' interests, as they rarely perfectly converge with theirs.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE , 2018. Vol. 13, no 1, article id e0188825
National Category
Social Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-341576DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188825ISI: 000419689600003PubMedID: 29320515OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-341576DiVA, id: diva2:1182060
Funder
Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, P13-1059:1Swedish Research Council, 2014-1371Available from: 2018-02-12 Created: 2018-02-12 Last updated: 2018-02-12Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(1094 kB)2 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 1094 kBChecksum SHA-512
9b989b86a942bf6845a4b2befb3ef2950f47b99f4dcbce5be43b8c17172c93c2df70e7f0951672458ef01084b2087fd252e9ef2d7abe198ff9fa2995beba3000
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed
By organisation
Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study (SCAS)
In the same journal
PLoS ONE
Social Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 2 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 11 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf