Arkes, H. R. (1981) Impediments to accurate clinical judgment and possible ways to minimize their impact. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49(3), 323–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Arkes, H. R. (1991) Costs and benefits of judgment errors: implications for debiasing. Psychological Bulletin, 110(3), 486–498.Google Scholar

Arkes, H. R. & Blumer, C. (1985) The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124–140.Google Scholar

Arkes, H. R., Faust, D., Guilmette, T. J. & Hart, K. (1988) Eliminating the hindsight bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 305–307.Google Scholar

Arkes, H. R., & Harkness, A. R. (1983) Estimates of contingency between two dichotomous variables. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112(1), 117–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barton, M., Symborski, C., Quinn, M. M., Morewedge, C. K., Kassam, K. S., & Korris, J. H. (2015) The Use of Theory in Designing a Serious Game for the Reduction of Cognitive Biases. Paper presented at the DiGRA ‘15 – Proceedings of the 2015 DiGRA International Conference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benartzi, S. & Thaler, R. (2007) Heuristics and biases in retirement savings behavior. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(3), 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bhargava, S. & Loewenstein, G. (2015) Behavioral economics and public policy 102: beyond nudging. American Economic Review, 105(5), 396–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Bruin, W. B., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007) Individual differences in adult decision-making competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 938–956.Google Scholar

Camerer, C. F. & Hogarth, R. M. (1999) The effects of financial incentives in experiments: a review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1), 7–42.Google Scholar

Chang, W., Chen, E., Mellers, B., & Tetlock, P. (2016) Developing expert political judgment: the impact of training and practice on judgmental accuracy in geopolitical forecasting tournaments. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(5), 509–526.Google Scholar

Davies, M. F. (1992) Field dependence and hindsight bias: cognitive restructuring and the generation of reasons. Journal of Research in Personality, 26(1), 58–74.Google Scholar

Downs, J. S. & Shafir, E. (1999) Why some are perceived as more confident and more insecure, more reckless and more cautious, more trusting and more suspicious, than others: enriched and impoverished options in social judgment. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(4), 598–610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Fischhoff, B. (1977) Perceived informativeness of facts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(2), 349–358.Google Scholar

Fischhoff, B. (1982) Debiasing. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases (pp. 422–444). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fong, G. T., Krantz, D. H., & Nisbett, R. E. (1986) The effects of statistical training on thinking about everyday problems. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 253–292.Google Scholar

Fong, G. T. & Nisbett, R. E. (1991) Immediate and delayed transfer of training effects in statistical reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120(1), 34–45.Google Scholar

Frederick, S. (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42.Google Scholar

Gigerenzer, G. & Hoffrage, U. (1995) How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats, Psychological Review, 102(4), 684–704.Google Scholar

Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.) (2002) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hertwig, R. (2017) When to consider boosting: some rules for policy-makers. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(2), 143–161.Google Scholar

Hertwig, R. & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2017) Nudging and boosting: steering or empowering good decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 973–986.Google Scholar

Hogarth, R. M. (2001). Educating intuition. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Holmes, D. S. (1968) Dimensions of projection. Psychological Bulletin, 69(4), 248–268.Google Scholar

Johnson, E. J. & Goldstein, D. (2003) Medicine. Do defaults save lives? Science, 302(5649), 1338–1339.Google Scholar

Jones, E. E. & Harris, V. A. (1967) The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1972) Subjective probability: a judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979) Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures. Management Science, 12, 313–327.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1982) On the study of statistical intuitions. Cognition, 11(2), 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klayman, J. & Ha, Y. W. (1987) Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94(2), 211–228.Google Scholar

Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980) Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6(2), 107–118.Google Scholar

Krueger, J. & Stanke, D. (2001) The role of self-referent and other-referent knowledge in perceptions of group characteristics. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(7), 878–888.Google Scholar

Larrick, R. P. (2004) Debiasing, Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 316–337): Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar

Larrick, R. P., Morgan, J. N., & Nisbett, R. E. (1990) Teaching the use of cost–benefit reasoning in everyday life. Psychological Science, 1(6), 362–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Larrick, R. P. & Soll, J. B. (2006) Intuitions about combining opinions: misappreciation of the averaging principle. Management Science, 52(1), 111–127.Google Scholar

Lehman, D. R., Lempert, R. O., & Nisbett, R. E. (1988) The effects of graduate training on reasoning: Formal discipline and thinking about everyday-life events. American Psychologist, 43(6), 431–442.Google Scholar

Lehman, D. R. & Nisbett, R. E. (1990) A longitudinal study of the effects of undergraduate training on reasoning. Developmental Psychology, 26(6), 952–960.Google Scholar

Lerner, J. & Tetlock, P. (1999) Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255–275.Google Scholar

Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) Misinformation and its correction continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131.Google Scholar

Lichtenstein, S. & Fischhoff, B. (1980) Training for calibration. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26(2), 149–171.Google Scholar

Lilienfeld, S. O. (2008) Can psychology save the world? British Psychological Society Research Digest. http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2007/09/can-psychology-save-world.htmlGoogle Scholar

Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & Landfield, K. (2009) Giving debiasing away: can psychological research on correcting cognitive errors promote human welfare? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 390–398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lord, C. G., Lepper, M. R., & Preston, E. (1984) Considering the opposite: a corrective strategy for social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1231–1243.Google Scholar

Milkman, K. L., Chugh, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). How can decision making be improved? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 379–383.Google Scholar

Morewedge, C. K. & Kahneman, D. (2010) Associative processes in intuitive judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 435–440.Google Scholar

Morewedge, C. K., Yoon, H., Scopelliti, I., Symborski, C. W., Korris, J. H., & Kassam, K. S. (2015) Debiasing decisions: improved decision making with a single training intervention. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 129–140.Google Scholar

Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000) Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1142–1150.Google Scholar

Nickerson, R. S. (1998) Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.Google Scholar

Nisbett, R. E. (1993) Rules for reasoning. Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Nisbett, R. E., Fong, G. T., Lehman, D. R., & Cheng, P. W. (1987) Teaching reasoning. Science, 238(4827), 625–631.Google Scholar

Nisbett, R. E., Krantz, D. H., Jepson, G., & Kunda, Z. (1983) The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 90(4), 339–363.Google Scholar

Northcraft, G. B. & Neale, M. A. (1987) Experts, amateurs, and real estate: an anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(1), 84–97.Google Scholar

Parker, A. M. & Fischhoff, B. (2005) Decision-making competence: external validation through an individual-differences approach. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993) The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Phillips, J. K., Klein, G., & Sieck, W. R. (2004) Expertise in judgment and decision making: a case for training intuitive decision skills. In Keren, G. & Wu, G. (Eds.). Handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 297–315). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Pronin, E., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. (2004) Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others. Psychological Review, 111(3), 781–799.Google Scholar

Pronin, E., Lin, D., & Ross, L. (2002) The bias blind spot: perceptions of bias in self and others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 369–381.Google Scholar

Ross, L. (1977) The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: distortions in the attribution process. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 10 (pp. 173–220). Academic Press.Google Scholar

Ross, L., Amabile, T., & Steinmetz, J. (1977) Social roles, social control, and biases in social perception processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(7), 485–494.Google Scholar

Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977) The “false consensus effect”: an egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(3), 279–301.Google Scholar

Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975) Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), 880–892.Google Scholar

Scopelliti, I., Min, H. L., McCormick, E., Kassam, K. S., & Morewedge, C. K. (2018) Individual differences in correspondence bias: measurement, consequences, and correction of biased interpersonal attributions. Management Science, 64(4), 1879–1910.Google Scholar

Scopelliti, I., Morewedge, C. K., McCormick, E., Min, H. L., Lebrecht, S., & Kassam, K. S. (2015) Bias blind spot: structure, measurement, and consequences. Management Science, 61(10), 2468–2486.Google Scholar

Schneider, W. & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977) Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84(1), 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sellier, A. L., Scopelliti, I., & Morewedge, C. K. (2019) Debiasing training improves decision making in the field. Psychological Science, 30(9), 1371–1379.Google Scholar

Shefrin, H. & Statman, M. (1985) The disposition to sell winners too early and ride losers too long: theory and evidence. The Journal of Finance, 40(3), 777–790.Google Scholar

Shiffrin, R. M. & Schneider, W. (1977) Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2), 127–190.Google Scholar

Sloman, S. (1996) The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Snyder, M. L. & Frankel, A. (1976) Observer bias: a stringent test of behavior engulfing the field. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(5), 857–864.Google Scholar

Snyder, M. & Swann, W. B. (1978) Hypothesis-testing processes in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(11), 1202–1212.Google Scholar

Soll, J. B., Milkman, K. L., & Payne, J. W. (2016) A user’s guide to debiasing. In Keren, G. & Wu, G. (Eds.). Handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 924–951). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Stanovich, K. E. (1999) Who is rational?: Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar

Stanovich, K. E. (2011) Rationality and the reflective mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (1998) Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(2), 161–188.Google Scholar

Stone, E. R. & Opel, R. B. (2000) Training to improve calibration and discrimination: the effects of performance and environmental feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(2), 282–309.Google Scholar

Symborski, C., Barton, M., Quinn, M. M., Korris, J. H., Kassam, K. S., & Morewedge, C. K. (2017) The design and development of serious games using iterative evaluation. Games and Culture, 12(3), 252–268.Google Scholar

Thaler, R. H. & Benartzi, S. (2004) Save more tomorrow^TM: using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. Journal of Political Economy, 112(S1), S164–S187.Google Scholar

Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. (2008) Nudge. Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Tschirgi, J. E. (1980) Sensible reasoning: a hypothesis about hypotheses. Child Development, 51(1), 1–10.Google Scholar

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232.Google Scholar

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.Google Scholar

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.Google Scholar

Ward, W. C., & Jenkins, H. M. (1965) The display of information and the judgment of contingency. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 19(3), 231–241.Google Scholar

Wason, P. C. (1960) On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12(3), 129–140.Google Scholar

Wason, P. C. (1968) Reasoning about a rule. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(3), 273–281.Google Scholar

Weinstein, N. & Klein, W. (1995) Resistance of personal risk perceptions to debiasing interventions. Health Psychology, 14(2), 132–140.Google Scholar

West, R. F., Meserve, R. J., & Stanovich, K. E. (2012) Cognitive sophistication does not attenuate the bias blind spot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 506–519.Google Scholar

Wilson, T. & Brekke, N. (1994) Mental contamination and mental correction: unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 117–142.Google Scholar

Yoon, H., Scopelliti, I., & Morewedge, C. K. (2021) Decision making can be improved through observational learning. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 162(January), 155–188.Google Scholar

Allcott, H. & Gentzkow, M. (2017) Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baron, J. (1985) Rationality and intelligence. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baron, J. (1995) Myside bias in thinking about abortion. Thinking & Reasoning, 1(3), 221–235.Google Scholar

Baron, J. (1988/2008) Thinking and deciding, 4th Ed. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baron, J. (2017) Comment on Kahan and Corbin: can polarization increase with actively open-minded thinking? Research and Politics, 4(1), 1–4 https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168016688122.Google Scholar

Baron, J. (2019) Actively open-minded thinking in politics. Cognition, 188, 8–18.Google Scholar

Baron, J., Gürçay, B., & Metz, S. E. (2017) Reflection, intuition, and actively open- minded thinking. In Toplak, M., & Weller, J. (Eds.). Individual differences in judgment and decision making from a developmental context (pp. 107–126). Routledge.Google Scholar

Baron, J. & High, D. (2020) People who endorse actively open-minded thinking (AOT) are sensitive to cues indicating AOT of sources. Poster. www.sjdm.org/presentations/2019-Poster-Baron-Jonathan-endorse-AOT-cues.pdfGoogle Scholar

Baron, J., Scott, S., Fincher, K., & Metz, S. E. (2015) Why does the Cognitive Reflection Test (sometimes) predict utilitarian moral judgment (and other things)? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(3), 265–284.Google Scholar

Bronstein, M., Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Rand, D., & Cannon, T. (2019) Reduced analytic and actively open-minded thinking help to explain the link between belief in fake news and delusionality, dogmatism, and religious fundamentalism. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3172140Google Scholar

Cacioppo, J. T. & Petty, R. E. (1982) The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131.Google Scholar

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Feng Kao, C. (1984) The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307.Google Scholar

Carpenter, J., Preotiuc-Pietro, D., Clark, J. et al. (2018) The impact of actively open-minded thinking on social media communication. Judgment & Decision Making, 13(6), 562–574.Google Scholar

Cederblom, J. (1989) Willingness to reason and the identification of the self. In Maimon, E. P., Nodine, B. F., & O’Connor, F. W. (Eds.). Thinking, Reasoning, and Writing (pp. 147–159). Longman.Google Scholar

Chinn, C. A., O’Donnell, A. M., & Jinks, T. S. (2000) The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69(1), 77–97.Google Scholar

Cohen, D. K. & Ball, D. L. (1990) Policy and practice: an overview. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 233–239. doi:10.3102/01623737012003233Google Scholar

Cruz, J. A., Frey, W. J., & Sanchez, H. D. (2004) The ethics bowl in engineering ethics at the university of Puerto Rico-Mayagüez. Teaching Ethics, 4(2), 15–31.Google Scholar

Cusimano, C. & Lombrozo, T. (2021) Morality justifies motivated reasoning in the folk ethics of belief. Cognition, 209(10451), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Di Domenico, G., Sit, J., Ishizaka, A., & Nunan, D. (2021) Fake news, social media and marketing: a systematic review. Journal of Business Research, 124, 329–341.Google Scholar

Epstein, S. & Meier, P. (1989) Constructive thinking: a broad coping variable with specific components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 332–350.Google Scholar

Erwin, T. D. (1981) Manual for the Scale of Intellectual Development. Developmental Analytics.Google Scholar

Erwin, T. D. (1983) The scale of intellectual development: measuring Perry’s scheme. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 6–12.Google Scholar

Fay, A. L. & Klahr, D. (1996) Knowing about guessing and guessing about knowing: preschoolers’ understanding of indeterminacy. Child Development, 67(2), 689–716.Google Scholar

Frederick, S. (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 24–42.Google Scholar

Gürçay-Morris, B. (2016) The use of alternative reasons in probabilistic judgment. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania http://finzi.psych.upenn.edu/baron/theses/GurcayMorrisDissertation.pdfGoogle Scholar

Haidt, J. (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.Google Scholar

Haran, U., Ritov, I., & Mellers, B. A. (2013) The role of actively open-minded thinking in information acquisition, accuracy, and calibration. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(3), 188–201.Google Scholar

Kahan, D. M. (2017) “Ordinary science intelligence”: a science-comprehension measure for study of risk and science communication, with notes on evolution and climate change. Journal of Risk Research, 20(8), 995–1016.Google Scholar

Kahan, D. M. & Braman, D. (2006) Cultural cognition and public policy. Yale Law & Policy Review, 24, 147–170.Google Scholar

Kahan, D. M. & Corbin, J. C. (2016) A note on the perverse effects of actively open- minded thinking on climate-change polarization. Research and Politics, 3(4), 1–5.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.Google Scholar

Kent, S. (1964) Words of estimative probability. Studies in Intelligence, 8(4), 49–65.Google Scholar

King, P. M. (1992) How do we know? Why do we believe? Learning to make reflective judgments. Liberal Education, 78(1), 2–9.Google Scholar

King, P. M. & Kitchener, K. S. (2004) Reflective judgment: theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 5–18.Google Scholar

Kokis, J. V., Macpherson, R., Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2002) Heuristic and analytic processing: Age trends and associations with cognitive ability and cognitive styles. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83(1), 26–52.Google Scholar

Kruglanski, A. W., Webster, D. M., & Klem, A. (1993) Motivated resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 861–876.Google Scholar

Ladenson, R. F. (2001) The educational significance of the ethics bowl. Teaching Ethics, 1(1), 63–78.Google Scholar

Ladenson, R. F. (2018) Ethics bowl: an approach to implementing ethics across the curriculum. In Ethics across the curriculum – Pedagogical perspectives (pp. 289–302). Springer.Google Scholar

Lazer, D. M., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y. et al. (2018) The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096.Google Scholar

Mason, L. & Boscolo, P. (2004) Role of epistemological understanding and interest in interpreting a controversy and in topic-specific belief change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 103–128.Google Scholar

McNeill, K. L., Gonzalez-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2017) Moving beyond pseudoargumentation: teachers’ enactments of an educative science curriculum focused on argumentation. Science Education, 101(3), 426–457.Google Scholar

Mellers, B., Stone, E., Atanasov, P. et al. (2015) The psychology of intelligence analysis: Drivers of prediction accuracy in world politics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21(1), 1–14.Google Scholar

Mellers, B., Ungar, L., Baron, J. et al. (2014) Psychological strategies for winning a geopolitical forecasting tournament. Psychological Science, 25(5), 1106–1115.Google Scholar

Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2011) Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74.Google Scholar

Merrick, A., Green, R., Cunningham, T. V., Eisenberg, L. R., & Hester, D. M. (2016) Introducing the medical ethics bowl. Cambridge Q. Healthcare Ethics, 25, 141–149.Google Scholar

Metz, S. E., Baelen, R. N., & Yu, A. (2020) Actively open-minded thinking in American adolescents. Review of Education, 8(3), 768–799.Google Scholar

Meyer, T. (2012) The intercollegiate ethics bowl: an active learning experience. Marketing Education Review, 22(3), 215–224.Google Scholar

Mill, J. S. (1859) On liberty. J.W. Parker & Son.Google Scholar

Morewedge, C. K., Yoon, H., Scopelliti, I., Symborski, C. W., Korris, J. H., & Kassam, K. S. (2015) Debiasing decisions: improved decision making with a single training intervention. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 129–140.Google Scholar

Mulhall, P. J., Smith, D. V., Hart, C. E., & Gunstone, R. F. (2017) Contemporary scientists discuss the need for openness and open-mindedness in science and society. Research in Science Education, 47(5), 1151–1168.Google Scholar

Nickerson, R. S. (1998) Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.Google Scholar

Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Koehler, D., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2020) On the belief that beliefs should change according to evidence: Implications for conspiratorial, moral, paranormal, political, religious, and science beliefs. Judgment and Decision Making, 15 (4), 476–498.Google Scholar

Perkins, D. (1986/2019) Learning to reason: the influence of instruction, prompts and scaffolding, metacognitive knowledge, and general intelligence on informal reasoning about everyday social and political issues. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(6), 624–643.Google Scholar

Perkins, D. (1995) Outsmarting IQ: the emerging science of learnable intelligence. Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar

Perkins, D. & Ritchhart, R. (2004) When is good thinking. In Dai, D. Y. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative Perspectives on Intellectual Functioning and Development (pp. 351–384). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar

Perry, W. G. (1970) Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: a scheme. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar

Peters, E., Joseph, S., Day, S., & Garety, P. (2004) Measuring delusional ideation: the 21-item Peters et al. Delusions Inventory (PDI). Schizophrenia Bulletin, 30(4), 1005–1022.Google Scholar

Ranney, M. A. & Clark, D. (2016) Climate change conceptual change: scientific information can transform attitudes. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 49–75.Google Scholar

Rokeach, M. (1960) The open and closed mind. Basic Books.Google Scholar

Sá, W. C., Kelly, C. N., Ho, C., & Stanovich, K. E. (2005) Thinking about personal theories: individual differences in the coordination of theory and evidence. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(5), 1149–1161.Google Scholar

Sá, W. C., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (1999) The domain specificity and generality of belief bias: searching for a generalizable critical thinking skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 497–510.Google Scholar

Sá, W. C. & Stanovich, K. K. (2001) The domain specificity and generality of mental contamination: accuracy and projection in judgments of mental content. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 281–302.Google Scholar

Slater, M. D. & Rouner, D. (1996) How message evaluation and source attributes may influence credibility assessment and belief change. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(4), 974–991.Google Scholar

Stanovich, K. (2011) Rationality and the reflective mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (1997) Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 342–357.Google Scholar

Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (1998) Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(2), 161–188.Google Scholar

Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (2007) Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking and Reasoning, 13(3), 225–247.Google Scholar

Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (2008) On the failure of cognitive ability to predict myside and one-sided thinking biases. Thinking and Reasoning, 14(2), 129–167.Google Scholar

Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2013) Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(4), 259–264.Google Scholar

Svedholm, A. M. & Lindeman, M. (2013) The separate roles of the reflective mind and involuntary inhibitory control in gatekeeping paranormal beliefs and the underlying intuitive confusions. British Journal of Psychology, 104(3), 303–319.Google Scholar

Svedholm, A. M. & Lindeman, M. (2017) Actively open-minded thinking: development of a shortened scale and disentangling attitudes toward knowledge and people. Thinking and Reasoning, 24(1), 21–40.Google Scholar

Swami, V., Voracek, M., Stieger, S., Tran, U. S., & Furnham, A. (2014) Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories. Cognition, 133(3), 572–585.Google Scholar

Tetlock, P. E. (2002) Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors. Psychological Review, 109(3), 451–471.Google Scholar

Tetlock, P. E., Mellers, B. A., & Scoblic, J. P. (2017) Bringing probability judgments into policy debates via forecasting tournaments. Science, 355(6324), 481–483.Google Scholar

Thompson, V. A., Prowse Turner, J. A., & Pennycook, G. (2011) Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63(3), 107–140.Google Scholar

Toplak, M. E. & Stanovich, K. E. (2003) Associations between myside bias on an informal reasoning task and amount of post-secondary education. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 17(7), 851–860.Google Scholar

Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2014) Rational thinking and cognitive sophistication: development, cognitive abilities, and thinking dispositions. Developmental Psychology, 50(4), 1037–1048.Google Scholar

Wineburg, S. & McGrew, S. (2017) Lateral reading: reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information. Stanford History Education Group Working Paper No. 2017-A1Google Scholar