Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Credulity

Credulity is the cognitive disposition to accept propositions or assertions as true on the basis of insufficient or uncertain evidence, often resulting in vulnerability to misinformation and deception.^[1] This trait manifests as an uncritical readiness to believe, contrasting with skepticism, and can impair judgment by bypassing evidentiary scrutiny.^[2] From an evolutionary perspective, moderate credulity likely evolved to facilitate cultural learning, enabling individuals to acquire adaptive knowledge from others' testimony without exhaustive personal verification, though it carries risks of exploitation and wasted effort on false beliefs.^[3] Empirical research highlights a negativity bias in credulity, wherein people exhibit heightened acceptance of hazard-related claims, an adaptation prioritizing avoidance of threats over false positives in safe scenarios.^[1] Individual variation arises from factors like analytic thinking styles, with intuitive processors showing greater susceptibility to paranormal or unsubstantiated ideas compared to those employing deliberate reasoning.^[2] In contemporary contexts, excessive credulity contributes to poor decision-making, including endorsement of pseudoscientific claims or manipulative narratives, amplifying societal costs such as susceptibility to scams and polarized beliefs.^[4] Studies link it to broader epistemic stances, where low skepticism correlates with maladaptive responses like overreliance on unverified sources, underscoring the need for balanced epistemic vigilance.^[5]

Definition and Etymology

Core Concept and Distinctions

Credulity denotes a disposition characterized by readiness to accept claims as true based on minimal or insufficient evidence, often bypassing critical evaluation.^[6] This quality manifests as an uncritical acceptance of assertions, particularly those lacking empirical support or logical rigor, and can lead individuals to endorse implausible ideas without scrutiny.^[1] Etymologically, the term derives from the Latin credulus, meaning "disposed to believe," which stems from credere, "to believe" or "to trust," reflecting an inherent human inclination toward belief that, when unchecked, becomes excessive.^[7] A key distinction lies between credulity and gullibility: while credulity involves the mere formation of unwarranted beliefs, gullibility extends to behavioral responses, such as acting on those beliefs in ways that invite manipulation or harm, implying a failure of social intelligence beyond passive acceptance.^[8] For instance, a credulous person might assent to a dubious claim intellectually, but gullibility requires subsequent ill-advised actions, like financial investment in a scam. This separation underscores credulity as a cognitive predisposition rather than an outcome of deficient judgment in practice. Credulity contrasts sharply with skepticism, which demands verifiable evidence and proportionality in belief formation, positioning the two as opposing poles on a continuum of epistemic vigilance.^[9] Unlike baseline trust, which evolves from repeated positive interactions and probabilistic reasoning about reliability, credulity operates independently of such evidentiary accumulation, favoring immediate assent over causal assessment.^[10] Philosophically, as articulated in Thomas Reid's framework, credulity serves as a foundational principle for interpersonal testimony—presuming truthfulness unless contradicted—but deviates into excess when it overrides contradictory data or first-hand observation.^[11] These boundaries highlight credulity's role not as mere naivety, but as a potential vulnerability in information processing, amplified in contexts of ambiguity or high-stakes decision-making.^[2]

Historical Development of the Term

The term "credulity" derives from the Latin credulitas, denoting easiness of belief or rash credence, stemming from credulus ("easily believing") and the verb credere ("to believe").^[7] In Roman usage, it carried a pejorative sense of undue trustfulness, often implying gullibility toward improbable claims.^[12] Early Christian thinkers like Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) and Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) reframed credulitas more positively as the innate human capacity for faith, distinguishing it from pagan connotations of credulous folly while retaining its root in belief without exhaustive proof.^[13] The word entered Middle English around the early 15th century, initially via Old French credulité (attested by the 12th century), signifying "faith" or "belief" in a neutral or affirmative sense akin to religious credence.^[6] ^[7] By the 1540s, its semantic evolution in English literature and philosophy emphasized a disposition to accept statements with insufficient evidence, particularly absurd or impossible ones, marking a shift toward the modern negative valuation of intellectual weakness.^[7] This development paralleled broader Renaissance skepticism, as seen in works critiquing superstition and popular delusions, where credulity became synonymous with a failure to apply rational scrutiny.^[12] In the 18th century, the term gained prominence in Enlightenment discourse on reason versus enthusiasm; for instance, artist William Hogarth's 1762 engraving Credulity, Superstition, and Fanaticism satirized public gullibility toward Methodist preacher George Whitefield's alleged miracles, using "credulity" to denote exploitable naivety. By the late 18th century, as in Thomas Williams's 1795 pamphlet The Age of Credulity, it critiqued societal readiness to embrace unverified wonders like balloon ascents or political fads, solidifying its association with evidence-blind acceptance amid expanding print media.^[14] This trajectory reflects credulity's transition from a descriptor of baseline trust to a vice of evidentiary neglect, influenced by empirical turns in philosophy and science.

Psychological Mechanisms

Contributing Cognitive Biases

Cognitive biases systematically promote credulity by prioritizing heuristic judgments over evidence-based scrutiny, often as adaptive shortcuts in uncertain environments. These biases include tendencies to favor familiar or authoritative sources, accept repeated claims, and selectively process confirming information, leading individuals to endorse unsubstantiated assertions without critical evaluation. Empirical studies demonstrate that such biases correlate with higher acceptance of pseudoscientific or misleading content, particularly among those with lower reflective capacities.^[15] Confirmation bias contributes to credulity by predisposing individuals to accept and retain information aligning with preexisting beliefs while dismissing contradictions, thereby amplifying vulnerability to tailored misinformation. For instance, experimental evidence shows that awareness of this bias reduces susceptibility to false claims by encouraging broader information seeking, with participants exposed to bias-training interventions rating general misinformation as less credible (effect size not quantified in aggregate, but significant across studies). This bias operates motivationally, as people derive psychological comfort from worldview-consistent data, fostering uncritical endorsement of ideologically congruent falsehoods.^[16]^[17] Authority bias manifests as undue deference to perceived experts or figures of power, attributing credibility to their statements irrespective of supporting evidence or logical coherence. Military and decision-making analyses identify this as a common error where opinions from leaders or specialists are assumed accurate, increasing credulity toward unverified directives or claims in hierarchical contexts. Peer-reviewed examinations in healthcare contexts further link it to patient acceptance of ineffective treatments based solely on provider endorsement, bypassing personal verification.^[18]^[19] The illusory truth effect enhances credulity through mere repetition, where prior exposure to a statement elevates its perceived validity, even if factually baseless. Meta-analytic reviews confirm that repeated misinformation gains plausibility across domains, with effects persisting despite corrections, as fluency from familiarity overrides accuracy checks (e.g., repetition frequency modulates belief strength, with higher exposures yielding stronger illusions). This mechanism exploits cognitive efficiency, making propagated falsehoods—such as in advertising or propaganda—appear inherently trustworthy.^[20] Low analytic cognitive style, often measured via tasks like the Cognitive Reflection Test, predicts elevated credulity by impairing deliberate override of intuitive errors. Two preregistered studies (N=473 and N=492) found that higher analytic scores explained 3.8–6.3% of variance in rejecting fabricated profiles or paranormal attributions (p<0.001), with non-reflective thinkers showing greater acceptance regardless of source legitimacy. This reflects a broader deficit in epistemic vigilance, where insufficient reflection allows biases to dominate belief formation.^[2] Additionally, negatively-biased credulity selectively heightens acceptance of hazard-related claims due to evolutionary priors favoring threat detection over neutral or positive information. Experimental ratings (e.g., hazard statements rated higher, M=4.74 vs. benefits M=4.34, p<0.0001) and archival analyses of urban legends and supernatural beliefs reveal disproportionate endorsement of dangers, correlating with perceptions of a hostile world (β=0.08, p=0.013). This asymmetry sustains cultural transmission of alarming but unverified narratives.^[1]

Individual and Developmental Factors

Children demonstrate elevated credulity as an adaptive mechanism for acquiring knowledge from caregivers and peers, facilitating rapid social learning in environments where verifying every claim independently would be inefficient.^[21] This tendency manifests in effortless acceptance of testimony, with young children often failing to distinguish deceptive from truthful information unless explicitly taught skepticism.^[22] Developmental progression involves gradual calibration of trust based on repeated interactions, shifting from baseline gullibility toward vigilance by middle childhood, though full epistemic caution emerges unevenly influenced by environmental feedback and cognitive maturation.^[23] Individual variations in credulity among adults stem partly from cognitive styles, with those exhibiting higher analytic thinking—characterized by deliberate override of intuitive judgments—showing reduced susceptibility to unsubstantiated claims, such as paranormal beliefs.^[2] Conversely, a bias toward presuming truthfulness in others' statements, rather than deficits in detection accuracy, accounts for much interpersonal variance in deception judgment, linking higher credulity to lower baseline skepticism.^[24] In populations with developmental disorders, such as intellectual disabilities, credulity persists at elevated levels due to impairments in social cue interpretation and executive function, increasing vulnerability to exploitation compared to neurotypical peers.^[25] Age-related patterns in adulthood reveal nuanced effects; while older individuals may exhibit heightened reliance on prior exposure leading to illusory truth in misinformation evaluation, meta-analytic evidence indicates superior overall discrimination of false claims among seniors, potentially due to accumulated life experience outweighing cognitive declines in select domains.^[26]^[27] Younger adults, including those in their 20s, conversely display greater susceptibility to certain deceptions like consumer fraud, challenging assumptions of uniform age-based decline in critical faculties.^[28] These differences underscore credulity's interplay with domain-specific expertise rather than monotonic developmental erosion.

Evolutionary Origins

Adaptive Functions of Baseline Trust

Baseline trust, defined as the default disposition to extend provisional acceptance to others' signals or information without exhaustive verification, confers evolutionary advantages by facilitating rapid social coordination in ancestral environments where humans relied on group living for survival.^[29] In small-scale hunter-gatherer societies, this predisposition enabled the formation of alliances and reciprocal exchanges, reducing the metabolic and temporal costs of perpetual suspicion, which could otherwise lead to isolation and heightened mortality risks from predation or resource scarcity.^[29] A primary adaptive function lies in promoting cooperation amid uncertainty. Evolutionary models demonstrate that trust evolves as a mechanism to sustain prosocial behaviors in repeated interactions, such as the prisoner's dilemma, where assuming a partner's reliability averts defection spirals triggered by errors or miscommunications, thereby stabilizing mutual benefits like shared hunting or defense.^[30] For instance, trust-based heuristics, which involve occasional verification after observing cooperative thresholds, outperform strict reciprocity strategies (e.g., tit-for-tat) when verification carries costs, maintaining cooperation frequencies above 50% even with error rates up to 5% in high-temptation scenarios.^[30] This function is particularly vital in human evolution, as extended juvenile dependency and large brain sizes necessitated reliable caregiving and knowledge pooling, impossible without baseline assumptions of others' benign intent.^[29] Social learning represents another key benefit, where baseline trust allows efficient acquisition of adaptive behaviors from conspecifics, bypassing costly individual experimentation. Human learners selectively copy from multiple demonstrators, high performers, or consensus groups, with copying rates increasing under low personal confidence, high task difficulty, or elevated asocial learning costs—strategies that yield higher payoffs than asocial alternatives in experimental paradigms.^[31] This credulity toward transmitted information underpins cumulative cultural evolution, enabling the assimilation of opaque skills (e.g., tool-making techniques) that solve complex environmental challenges, though it is modulated to favor hazard-related cues due to asymmetric costs: false incredulity toward dangers (e.g., toxins) incurs survival threats far exceeding false credulity's minor precautions.^[1] Without such default acceptance, cultural ratcheting—wherein innovations build iteratively—would falter, as verifying every claim personally would overwhelm cognitive limits in information-rich social niches.^[1] In resource-limited ancestral settings, baseline trust also mitigates decision paralysis, serving as a cognitive shortcut that allocates mental resources to exploration and innovation rather than constant skepticism. This efficiency is evident in evolutionary simulations where trust evolves alongside punishment mechanisms to enforce norms, co-adapting in variable environments to balance vulnerability with reciprocity.^[32] Overall, these functions underscore how baseline trust, while risking exploitation, provided net fitness gains by leveraging the interdependence of human ultracooperation, as quantified in models showing trust frequencies stabilizing at 15-50% under realistic network dynamics and return expectations.^[29]

Risks of Excessive Credulity

Excessive credulity in evolutionary contexts exposes individuals to exploitation by deceivers, resulting in direct fitness reductions through misallocated resources, energy, or reproductive effort. In ancestral environments characterized by recurrent social interactions, overly trusting individuals could be manipulated via false signals of reciprocity or alliance, leading to net losses in cooperative exchanges where cheaters gain without reciprocating. Theoretical analyses indicate that such gullibility facilitates the spread of deceptive strategies, eroding the victim's status, access to mates, or survival prospects, as deceivers exploit the asymmetry between the low cost of lying and the high cost of misplaced trust.^[33] Particularly maladaptive is excessive credulity toward non-hazardous or benefit-oriented information, which invites wasted investments on illusory gains without the offsetting protective value seen in hazard vigilance. Empirical studies demonstrate that unbiased or overly permissive belief acceptance correlates with higher vulnerability to misleading cues, such as exaggerated claims of kinship or resource availability, diverting effort from genuine opportunities and increasing exposure to rivals or predators indirectly through diminished vigilance. For instance, in mating domains, gullible responses to dishonest signals of commitment or genetic quality could result in cuckoldry for males or suboptimal offspring investment for females, with historical human cuckoldry rates estimated at 1-30% across populations amplifying the selective pressure against extreme trust.^[34]^[35] This vulnerability extends to information transmission, where credulous adoption of false adaptive knowledge—such as erroneous foraging techniques or alliance cues—propagates maladaptive behaviors across kin or groups, compounding individual costs into lineage-level declines. Evolutionary models of signaling emphasize that without sufficient skepticism, cheap deceptive signals proliferate, as receivers bear the fitness penalties of erroneous acceptance while senders incur minimal risks, underscoring how excessive credulity undermines honest communication equilibria essential for coordination. In species with advanced deception, including primates and early humans, field observations confirm that highly gullible phenotypes suffer recurrent exploitation, selecting for cognitive safeguards like negativity bias to mitigate these risks.^[34]^[35]

Societal Impacts

In Politics and Governance

In democratic governance, credulity enables the selection of leaders lacking competence by favoring emotional rhetoric and short-term promises over evidence-based policies, as voters often prioritize prejudices and misinformation. This dynamic is exacerbated by mechanisms like micro-targeted advertising, as seen in the 2016 U.S. election where Cambridge Analytica exploited data from over 87 million Facebook users to amplify divisive falsehoods, contributing to unexpected outcomes by preying on informational silos. Similarly, referendums such as the 2016 Brexit vote spread disinformation that swayed public opinion toward immediate gains, ignoring long-term economic projections later validated by analyses showing a 2-3% GDP hit by 2020.^[36]^[37]^[38] Excessive public trust in untrustworthy institutions perpetuates credulity, diminishing accountability and allowing governance failures to persist without corrective pressure. A cross-national analysis of 135 countries identifies a "credulous inconsistency" quadrant where high citizen trust coexists with low governmental performance on metrics like promise-keeping and service delivery, trapping societies in low-reform equilibria; in such cases, blind faith hinders scrutiny, as evidenced by stagnant policy responses in high-trust, low-capacity regimes. This vulnerability is compounded by cognitive predispositions, where modern information overload amplifies susceptibility to fabricated narratives influencing decisions, from policy endorsements to electoral support.^[39]^[40] Populism exemplifies credulity's political toll, as movements leverage misleading anti-elite tropes to garner votes detached from verifiable data, with adherents showing heightened receptivity to unsubstantiated claims. Empirical work links populist attitudes to greater endorsement of conspiracy theories and tolerance for logical inconsistencies, predicting voting for candidates promising unattainable fixes amid economic discontent. Yet, while these patterns hold in surveys of European and U.S. samples, broader research tempers claims of widespread gullibility, finding limited causal sway of disinformation on aggregate voting behavior, suggesting resilience via partisan filtering over raw credulity.^[41]^[42]^[43]

In Media and Information Ecosystems

In fragmented media environments, credulity enables the rapid dissemination of misinformation, as individuals often accept claims aligning with preexisting beliefs without verification, particularly on social media platforms where algorithms prioritize engagement over accuracy.^[44]^[45] These algorithms amplify sensational or emotionally charged content, exploiting cognitive shortcuts that favor novelty and familiarity, thereby fostering environments where false narratives gain traction faster than corrections.^[46] Empirical data from 2023 indicates that such algorithmic curation distorts social learning processes, leading users to overestimate the prevalence of extreme views and reducing reliance on diverse, evidence-based sources.^[44] Partisan media consumption exacerbates credulity by reinforcing selective belief in information that confirms ideological priors, with studies showing that partisanship overrides factual accuracy in judgments of both true and false news.^[47] A 2024 Stanford analysis found that partisan bias was stronger in disbelieving real news opposing one's views than in accepting fake news supporting them, illustrating how echo chambers sustain erroneous convictions.^[47] Similarly, research published in PNAS Nexus in 2024 demonstrated that incentives for accuracy failed to reduce partisan endorsement of new misinformation, as identity-driven motivations persisted.^[48] This dynamic is compounded by mainstream media's documented left-leaning institutional biases, which erode overall trust—Gallup polls from October 2024 report only 31% of Americans expressing confidence in mass media, near historic lows—prompting audiences to gravitate toward aligned outlets prone to uncritical acceptance of favorable falsehoods.^[49]^[50] Exposure to misinformation further diminishes trust in established media while bolstering credulity toward alternative narratives, creating feedback loops of polarization. A 2020 experimental study linked fake news consumption to reduced mainstream media trust, particularly when it aligned with in-group perspectives.^[51] In partisan contexts, this manifests as hindered belief correction; a 2025 Nature study revealed that ideological attitudes impeded updating mistaken views, driving continued sharing of misleading content.^[52] Such patterns underscore causal pathways where credulity, amplified by algorithmic and partisan filters, undermines epistemic standards in information ecosystems, favoring intuitive over deliberative processing.^[50] Despite interventions like fact-checking, habitual sharing behaviors—tied to broader online patterns rather than mere laziness—sustain the cycle, as evidenced by 2023 PNAS findings on frequent sharers' resistance to discernment cues.^[46]

Historical Manifestations

Pre-20th Century Examples

In 1212, thousands of youths in France and Germany, inspired by prophetic visions, embarked on the Children's Crusade, believing their innocence would enable them to peacefully reclaim Jerusalem from Muslim control, a feat that had eluded professional armies in prior expeditions. Led by figures such as Stephen of Cloyes in France and Nicholas in Germany, participants—estimated at 20,000 to 30,000, mostly adolescents—marched toward Mediterranean ports expecting divine intervention to part the seas or provide ships, but instead faced starvation, disease, and enslavement upon arrival in Genoa and Marseille, with few surviving to return home.^[53] During the Black Death pandemic of 1347–1351, bands of flagellants roamed Europe, convinced that self-inflicted scourging would atone for humanity's sins and halt the plague, drawing crowds who joined in processions despite papal prohibitions in 1349 declaring such practices heretical. These movements, documented in contemporary chronicles, reflected widespread credulity in supernatural causation and ritual efficacy amid mortality rates exceeding 30% in affected regions, leading to social disruption including attacks on Jews blamed for poisoning wells.^[54] The Dancing Plague of 1518 in Strasbourg saw approximately 400 residents compelled to dance uncontrollably for days or weeks, with some fatalities from exhaustion, as authorities initially attributed the outbreak to a curse or divine judgment and prescribed more dancing as remedy, exacerbating the episode until medical intervention shifted focus to rest and bloodletting. Eyewitness accounts and city records indicate participants and officials accepted supernatural explanations over natural ones like ergot poisoning or psychological contagion, highlighting credulity in mass psychogenic responses during times of famine and disease.^[54] Tulip Mania in the Dutch Republic peaked in February 1637, when rare bulb varieties traded at prices equivalent to luxury homes—such as a single Viceroy tulip fetching 2,500 guilders, over ten times an artisan's annual wage—fueled by futures contracts and speculation among merchants and burghers, before prices collapsed amid contract disputes and market saturation. While the scale was limited to elite circles rather than national ruin, the episode exemplifies credulity in extrapolated value from scarcity and novelty, as buyers ignored biological limits like bulb propagation cycles.^[55] The South Sea Bubble of 1720 in Britain involved speculative frenzy around the South Sea Company's stock, which rose from £128 to £1,000 per share by August before plummeting to £150 by December, driven by investors' credulity toward vague promises of monopoly profits from South American trade despite the company's actual slave-trading focus and lack of viable routes post-Utrecht Treaty. Promoters exploited anonymity with schemes like "an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is," attracting even Isaac Newton, who lost £20,000, illustrating susceptibility to hype over fundamentals in nascent joint-stock markets.^[56] In the Salem witch trials of 1692, Puritan colonists in Massachusetts Bay executed 20 individuals and imprisoned over 200 based on accusations of spectral assaults and pacts with the devil, with courts admitting "spectral evidence" despite skepticism from figures like Boston minister Increase Mather, who warned against over-reliance on unverifiable visions. The hysteria, triggered by fits among adolescent girls and amplified by communal fears of Indian warfare and religious schisms, subsided after Governor Phips halted proceedings in October, revealing credulity in folklore-derived proofs amid weak evidentiary standards.^[57]

20th Century Cases

In 1917, two young cousins in Cottingley, England, produced a series of photographs depicting fairies, which garnered widespread attention and belief among intellectuals despite rudimentary staging using cut-out figures. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of the skeptical Sherlock Holmes, endorsed the images as genuine evidence of spiritual entities after examination by photographer Harold Snelling, who declared them untampered. The hoax persisted for decades, with additional staged photos in the 1920s reinforcing credulity among Theosophists and spiritualists, until the perpetrators confessed in 1983.^[58]^[59] The Ponzi scheme, named after Italian immigrant Charles Ponzi, exemplified financial credulity in 1919–1920 Boston, where he promised 50% returns in 45 days through purported international postal reply coupon arbitrage. Attracting over 40,000 investors and amassing approximately $15 million (equivalent to over $200 million today), the operation relied on new funds to pay earlier participants, collapsing when scrutiny revealed no viable trading mechanism. Investors, including immigrants and middle-class savers, overlooked mathematical impossibilities and Ponzi's lack of verifiable operations due to greed and social proof from early payouts.^[60] The spiritualism movement surged in the early 20th century, particularly after World War I, as millions sought contact with deceased loved ones through mediums claiming spirit communication via séances, table-rapping, and ectoplasm manifestations. Proponents, including scientists like William Crookes, accepted phenomena despite repeated exposures of fraud—such as hidden accomplices and chemical tricks—attributing failures to insufficient conditions rather than deception. By the 1920s, an estimated 1–2 million adherents in the U.S. alone participated, funding mediums who exploited grief without empirical validation.^[61]^[62] In 1978, the Peoples Temple cult under Jim Jones culminated in the Jonestown mass suicide-murder in Guyana, where 918 followers ingested cyanide-laced Flavor Aid after years of accepting Jones' messianic claims, fabricated healings, and apocalyptic threats. Recruits, drawn from U.S. urban poor and disillusioned seekers, surrendered assets and autonomy, ignoring defectors' warnings and external investigations due to isolation, charisma, and enforced loyalty tests. The event highlighted credulity amplified by group dynamics and authority deference, resulting in over 300 children's deaths.^[63]^[64]

Contemporary Examples and Research

Modern Scams and Misinformation

In the 2020s, investment scams have emerged as a primary vector for exploiting credulity, with U.S. consumers reporting $5.7 billion in losses in 2024 alone, marking a 24% increase from the prior year.^[65] These schemes often prey on individuals' willingness to trust unsolicited promises of high returns, such as in cryptocurrency "pig butchering" operations, where scammers build rapport over time before inducing transfers, contributing to an estimated $9.9 billion in global crypto scam losses for 2024.^[66] Phishing attacks, which mimic legitimate entities to elicit sensitive information, affected over 38 million detected incidents worldwide in 2024, with daily volumes reaching 3.4 billion malicious emails that succeed by leveraging users' baseline trust in familiar brands or authorities.^[67]^[68] Impersonation frauds have surged, particularly targeting older adults, with reports of losses exceeding $10,000 showing a more than fourfold increase from 2020 to 2024, often involving fake emergencies like government or tech support alerts that demand immediate compliance.^[69] Text-based scams amplified this vulnerability, yielding $470 million in reported U.S. losses in 2024—over five times the 2020 figure—by exploiting the perceived legitimacy of SMS from purported contacts or services.^[70] Overall fraud losses hit a record $12.5 billion in 2024, up 25% from 2023, underscoring how digital anonymity reduces perceived risks and encourages uncritical action.^[65] Misinformation campaigns have similarly capitalized on credulity through rapid social media dissemination, where false narratives spread faster than corrections due to users' tendency to share unverified content aligning with preconceptions.^[71] State-sponsored efforts, such as Russia's "DoppelGänger" operation uncovered in 2024, involved fake websites mimicking legitimate news outlets to amplify divisive falsehoods, eroding trust in institutions by preying on audiences' confirmation biases.^[72] AI-generated deepfakes and automated bots have intensified this, enabling scalable fabrication of misleading videos or stories that exploit visual and emotional cues, as seen in rising identity-based disinformation targeting elections and public health.^[73] Empirical tracking reveals that such content often garners higher engagement than factual reporting, perpetuating cycles where initial credulity leads to broader societal distrust.^[74]

Empirical Studies from 2020 Onward

A 2020 study examined the relationship between analytic cognitive style and credulity using Barnum personality profiles presented as either astrological or psychological in origin. In two experiments with 473 and 492 adult participants, respectively, higher scores on the Cognitive Reflection Test—a measure of analytic thinking—negatively predicted credulity, accounting for 6.3% and 3.8% of variance in belief endorsement across studies. Paranormal beliefs positively predicted credulity (10.5% to 15.8% variance), while experimental manipulations of thinking style via instructions showed limited effects, suggesting trait-level analytic tendencies more reliably mitigate uncritical acceptance.^[2] In the domain of epistemic trust, a 2025 validation of the Revised Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire (RETMCQ) confirmed a three-factor structure in a UK sample of 525 adults, with the credulity subscale demonstrating good reliability and positive correlations with psychopathology measures (r = 0.36 for Brief Symptom Inventory; r = 0.48 for Personality Assessment Inventory-Borderline Features). Credulity also correlated with childhood adversity indices (r = 0.18 for multiplicity; r = 0.20 for severity) and partially mediated the link between adversity and borderline features, indicating excessive openness to unreliable information as a pathway to mental health impairments.^[75] A 2024 meta-analysis of 31 studies involving 11,561 U.S. participants identified low analytic thinking as a strong predictor of susceptibility to online misinformation, with higher analytical skills enhancing discrimination between true and false news (β = 0.66) and reducing false-news bias (β = -0.19). Demographic factors included greater discrimination ability in older adults (β = 0.38) and Democrats relative to Republicans (β = -0.42), alongside true-news bias linked to ideological congruency (β = 0.29), suggesting credulity manifests variably by cognitive and partisan traits.^[27] Empirical work on misinformation belief highlights credulity-promoting mechanisms such as the illusory truth effect, where repetition increases perceived accuracy regardless of plausibility, and cognitive laziness, evidenced by lower cognitive reflection correlating with higher fake news endorsement in platform data. Emotional arousal, particularly anger, further exacerbates uncritical acceptance of congruent falsehoods.^[76] A 2023 meta-analysis of 42 studies (n = 42,530) on psychological inoculation interventions found they significantly reduced credulity toward misinformation, lowering credibility assessments (Hedges' g = -0.36), though effects on sharing intentions were nonsignificant (g = -0.35). This underscores baseline credulity as modifiable through preemptive reasoning training.^[77]

Mitigation Strategies

Fostering Critical Thinking

Critical thinking, encompassing the systematic evaluation of evidence, identification of logical fallacies, and scrutiny of sources, directly counters credulity by equipping individuals to discern credible claims from unsubstantiated ones.^[78] Educational interventions designed to build these skills, such as structured training in analytical reasoning and bias recognition, have shown measurable reductions in susceptibility to misinformation, a proxy for credulous acceptance of false narratives.^[79] Peer-reviewed research indicates that short-term interventions, including workshops on source verification and argument deconstruction, enhance participants' ability to detect fake news, with effect sizes indicating moderate to strong improvements in accuracy.^[80] For instance, a 2024 meta-analysis of media literacy programs, which integrate critical thinking components like lateral reading—cross-checking claims against external sources—found they bolster resilience to deceptive content by an average standardized mean difference of 0.60.^[80] These programs emphasize active techniques, such as debating real-world claims or applying checklists for evidence quality, over passive instruction, yielding sustained effects even among adults with varying prior education levels.^[81] In adult populations, fostering critical thinking often involves self-directed practices like journaling assumptions or engaging with diverse viewpoints to challenge confirmation bias, which correlates with lower credulity in empirical assessments.^[82] A 2023 study demonstrated that higher critical thinking dispositions predict superior fake news detection on social media, independent of general intelligence, suggesting targeted training in dispositions such as open-mindedness and intellectual perseverance can mitigate gullibility.^[83] However, effectiveness varies by intervention design; superficial awareness campaigns show limited impact compared to immersive, reflective exercises that encourage causal analysis of information origins. Institutional efforts, including university curricula and online modules from organizations like the American Psychological Association, incorporate these methods with evidence of transfer to everyday decision-making, reducing endorsement of unverified claims by up to 20-30% in post-training evaluations.^[81] Longitudinal data from such programs underscore that repeated application reinforces neural pathways for skepticism, though outcomes depend on participant motivation and avoidance of ideologically slanted facilitation, which can inadvertently reinforce biases.^[79]

Balancing Skepticism with Epistemic Humility

Epistemic humility serves as a counterweight to skepticism, fostering an awareness of personal cognitive limitations and the provisional nature of knowledge, which prevents skepticism from rigidifying into dogmatism that dismisses potentially valid evidence. In the context of combating credulity—uncritical acceptance of claims—skepticism demands rigorous scrutiny of assertions lacking empirical support, yet without humility, it risks entrenching biases through overconfidence in one's evaluative faculties. This equilibrium encourages ongoing belief revision based on emerging data, as exemplified in scientific practice where initial skepticism toward novel hypotheses yields to acceptance upon sufficient verification, avoiding both gullible endorsement and obstructive rejection.^[84] Empirical research underscores the benefits of this balance, showing that intellectual humility—defined as recognizing the fallibility of one's beliefs—correlates with reduced polarization, lower endorsement of extremism, and diminished vulnerability to conspiracy theories, which often arise from unchecked skeptical impulses or compensatory credulity. For instance, a 2022 meta-analysis found that higher intellectual humility predicts greater openness to opposing views and decreased confirmation bias, enabling individuals to integrate new evidence without prematurely dismissing it.^[85] In decision-making scenarios, epistemic humility facilitates multi-perspective analysis by acknowledging non-knowledge and uncertain outcomes, as demonstrated in studies of policy formulation during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, where it promoted adaptive strategies over inflexible skepticism.^[86]^[84] However, the balance requires caution against excess; induced epistemic humility can erroneously erode confidence in epistemically justified beliefs, potentially fostering undue deference to unverified claims and reverting toward credulity.^[87] Practically, this manifests in habits such as actively seeking disconfirming evidence while maintaining provisional stances, as supported by findings that intellectually humble individuals exhibit superior cognitive flexibility and avoidance of evidence-overlooking tendencies. Thus, in mitigating credulity, the integration of skepticism with epistemic humility yields resilient epistemologies grounded in empirical realism rather than absolutism.

References

[1]
Negatively-Biased Credulity and the Cultural Evolution of Beliefs
The results of Study 1 provide independent support for the existence of negatively-biased credulity, a psychological mechanism that can be expected to operate ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
[2]
The Effect of Analytic Cognitive Style on Credulity - Frontiers
Oct 14, 2020 · Analytic thinking predicts credulity and belief in the paranormal was linked with experiencing more anomalous experiences and more paranormal explanations.Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical<|separator|>
[3]
Negatively-biased credulity and the cultural evolution of beliefs
Apr 15, 2014 · However, credulity entails costs, including susceptibility to exploitation, and effort wasted due to false beliefs.
[4]
Political Orientation Predicts Credulity Regarding Putative Hazards
Mar 31, 2017 · To benefit from information provided by other people, people must be somewhat credulous. However, credulity entails risks.
[5]
“Trust me, do not trust anyone”: how epistemic mistrust and credulity ...
Conversely, credulity is associated with an extravertedmaladaptive response style characterized by a reckless disregard for all restrictions and an indifference ...
[6]
CREDULITY Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Oct 6, 2025 · The meaning of CREDULITY is readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence. How to use credulity in a ...
[7]
Credulity - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
Meaning "a weak or ignorant disregard of the importance of evidence, a disposition too ready to believe," especially absurd or impossible things, is from 1540s.
[8]
Is there a mental condition that makes people unconditionally gullible?
Jul 3, 2018 · Constructs related to deficits in social intelligence are credulity and gullibility. Greenspan, Loughlin and Black (2001) defined credulity as ' ...
[9]
Gullibility - Wikipedia
Gullibility is a failure of social intelligence in which a person is easily tricked or manipulated into an ill-advised course of action.
[10]
Credulity | Psychology Today
Oct 25, 2015 · Credulity and skepticism exist in dynamic balance: too much of either impairs clinical work. Our pride animates these assessments.Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
[11]
[PDF] Skepticism and credulity: a model and applications to political spin ...
Mar 2, 2021 · In this paper I model a decision maker who forms beliefs and opinions using a dialectic heuristic that depends on their degree of skepticism ...
[12]
Reid's Principle of Credulity as a Principle of Charity
Feb 11, 2016 · Reid's principle of credulity is a disposition to believe others, and is interpreted as a principle of charity, implying they tell truth, are ...
[13]
credulity, n. meanings, etymology and more | Oxford English Dictionary
credulity is of multiple origins. Either (i) a borrowing from French. Or (ii) a borrowing from Latin. Etymons: French credulite; Latin ...
[14]
The Legacy of Medieval Credulitas - Oxford Academic
Contrary to the Roman pagan authors, for whom this word meant “credulity,” Augustine and Aquinas understood credulitas as our natural capability to believe ...
[15]
The Age of Credulity: Believing the Unbelievable in the Century of ...
In 1795 appeared a pamphlet by the Calvinist preacher Thomas Williams entitled The Age of Credulity. The occasion of this publication was the public support ...
[16]
How Gullible are We? A Review of the Evidence from Psychology ...
Against strong gullibility, I presently review evidence from different ... Negatively-biased credulity and the cultural evolution of beliefs. PLoS ONE ...
[17]
The impact of confirmation bias awareness on mitigating ...
Oct 15, 2024 · This study investigates the effect of confirmation bias awareness on susceptibility to general misinformation.
[18]
Why we're susceptible to fake news, how to defend against it
Aug 10, 2018 · One key to avoiding the pull of confirmation bias is reducing the anxiety that makes it so appealing. “One positive defense strategy is humor.
[19]
[PDF] Cognitive Biases: - DTIC
Oct 1, 2020 · Authority bias: people assume that the opinions of an authority (e.g., recognized figures, leaders, or experts) are more accurate ...
[20]
“The Dark Side of Musculoskeletal Care”: Why Do Ineffective ...
Authority bias occurs when the opinion of an expert, such as a health professional, is deemed sufficient for decision-making by the patient [107]. Research ...
[21]
The effects of repetition frequency on the illusory truth effect
May 13, 2021 · Repeated information is often perceived as more truthful than new information. This finding is known as the illusory truth effect.Missing: credulity | Show results with:credulity
[22]
The Development of Cynicism - PMC - NIH
We all tend to think of young children as naive and gullible. Indeed, some scientists have argued that gullibility in childhood is an evolutionary necessity ...
[23]
Knowing When to Doubt: Developing a Critical Stance When ...
“Children are especially credulous, especially gullible, especially prone toward acceptance and belief--as if they accepted as effortlessly as they comprehended ...
[24]
How honest and trustful children become vigilant communicators.
Aug 25, 2015 · Here, we suggest that children's apparent gullibility is the result of robust expectations of trustworthiness, calibrated to the experience ...
[25]
Individual Differences in Judging Deception: Accuracy and Bias
Oct 9, 2025 · When judging deception, people differ less in ability than in the inclination to regard others' statements as truthful. People also differ from ...
[26]
Credulity and gullibility in people with developmental disorders
The authors claim that people with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities are likely to be more credulous and gullible than those without ...
[27]
Older Americans are more vulnerable to prior exposure effects in ...
Jul 24, 2023 · I find that prior exposure effects increase with age—being strongest for those in the oldest cohort (60+)—especially for false news ...
[28]
Susceptibility to online misinformation: A systematic meta-analysis of ...
We find that older age, higher analytical thinking skills, and identifying as a Democrat are associated with higher discrimination ability. Additionally, older ...
[29]
Aging in an Era of Fake News - PMC - NIH
Jun 1, 2021 · Contrary to popular opinion, susceptibility to consumer fraud decreases with age (Ross, Grossmann, & Schryer, 2014). Young adults in their 20s ...
[30]
The evolution of trust and trustworthiness - PMC - NIH
Trust and trustworthiness form the basis for continued social and economic interactions, and they are also fundamental for cooperation, fairness, honesty, ...
[31]
[PDF] The evolution of trust as a cognitive shortcut in repeated interactions
Sep 4, 2025 · Overall, our results demonstrate the individual adaptive benefit to an agent of using a trust heuristic, and provide a formal theory for how ...
[32]
The evolutionary basis of human social learning - PMC
Our analysis provides strong support for the hypothesis that human social learning is regulated by adaptive learning rules.
[33]
Expectations of Fairness and Trust Co-Evolve in Environments of ...
Sep 25, 2017 · We find that trust and costly punishment can both be adaptive, and that trust mediates the evolution of costly punishment.
[34]
The Science Of Gullibility: Why We Get Duped - NPR
Jan 9, 2009 · And Richard Dawkins, in fact, says that gullibility is something that's built in through evolution, because if there's a gullible gene or a meme ...
[35]
[PDF] Negatively-Biased Credulity and the Cultural Evolution of Beliefs
Mar 24, 2014 · Key words: cultural evolution; negativity bias; credulity; urban legends; supernatural beliefs ... Boyer P (2000) Evolutionary psychology and ...
[36]
Why does costly signalling evolve? Challenges with testing the ... - NIH
Zahavi's handicap hypothesis (Grafen, 1990; Zahavi, 1975; Zahavi & Zahavi, 1997) is a popular explanation for the evolution of honest and costly signalling.Missing: gullibility | Show results with:gullibility
[37]
Why Democracy Produces Incompetent Leaders - And How to Fix it
Dec 13, 2019 · Democracy appears to produce an abundance of incompetent and dishonest political leaders, who exploit people's credulity and prejudices and thrive on emotion- ...
[38]
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/04/29/many-across-the-globe-are-dissatisfied-with-how-democracy-is-working/
[39]
https://democracyspot.net/2021/07/08/between-too-much-and-too-little-a-tentative-framework-for-putting-trust-in-government-into-context/
[40]
a tentative framework for putting trust in government into context
Jul 8, 2021 · Increased trust in government in this majority of countries would result in shifts towards situations of credulity: arguably the worst-case ...
[41]
Democracy of the Credulous - Fondation Descartes
How, in general, can imaginary, invented or even frankly false facts spread, win the support of audiences, influence political decisions, therefore shaping a ...
[42]
Populist Gullibility: Conspiracy Theories, News Credibility, Bullshit ...
Jan 10, 2022 · These studies support the notion of populist gullibility: An increased tendency of people who score high on populist attitudes to accept obscure or ...Missing: behavior | Show results with:behavior
[43]
(PDF) Understanding Populism: Voting Behaviour, Gullibility and ...
PDF | On Jan 8, 2025, Ivana Piterová and others published Understanding Populism: Voting Behaviour, Gullibility and Misleading Narratives | Find, read and ...
[44]
Disinformation: People aren't as gullible as we think - DW Akademie
Mar 17, 2024 · Psychologist Sacha Altay says misinformation doesn't impact people's behavior as much as we think. People aren't that gullible, he says in an interview.
[45]
Social-Media Algorithms Have Hijacked “Social Learning”
Aug 16, 2023 · The researchers argue that the way platform algorithms filter content interferes with the strategies people typically use for social learning.
[46]
Social Media Algorithms Warp How People Learn from Each Other
Aug 25, 2023 · People's daily interactions with online algorithms affect how they learn from others, with negative consequences including social misperceptions, conflict and ...
[47]
Sharing of misinformation is habitual, not just lazy or biased - PNAS
Jan 17, 2023 · Misinformation sharing appears to be part of a larger pattern of frequent online sharing of information: People who share greater numbers of ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[48]
Partisanship sways news consumers more than the truth, new study ...
Oct 10, 2024 · In addition, the effect of partisan bias was stronger for real news than fake news. That is, people were more likely to disbelieve true ...
[49]
Partisan belief in new misinformation is resistant to accuracy ...
Nov 11, 2024 · Our main result that partisan bias in expressed beliefs persists under strong accuracy incentives is however robust to changes in what we count ...
[50]
Americans' Trust in Media Remains at Trend Low - Gallup News
Oct 14, 2024 · Americans continue to register record-low trust in the mass media, with 31% expressing a “great deal” or “fair amount” of confidence in the media.Missing: gullibility | Show results with:gullibility
[51]
Fake news: Why do we believe it? - PMC - PubMed Central
Cognitive factors are important, such as confirmation bias, political partisanship, prior exposure and intuitive thinking. Low science knowledge and low ...
[52]
Misinformation in action: Fake news exposure is linked to lower trust ...
Jun 2, 2020 · We found that fake news exposure was associated with a decline in mainstream media trust among respondents. Our results also showed that fake ...Missing: gullibility | Show results with:gullibility
[53]
Partisan attitudes and the motivation behind the spread of ... - Nature
Aug 22, 2025 · We find evidence that partisan attitudes hindered the correction of mistaken beliefs, which drove individuals to spread misleading information.
[54]
The Disastrous Time Tens of Thousands of Children Tried to Start a ...
Oct 18, 2017 · The Children's Crusade of 1212, as it is now known, has gone down in history as a misguided disaster. And though Stephen was a real historical figure, the ...Missing: credulity | Show results with:credulity
[55]
7 Mysterious Mass Illnesses That Defied Explanation - History.com
Jul 20, 2022 · For centuries, human societies have sought to identify the cause of mass hysteria. The Salem Witch Trials accused women of witchcraft. During ...
[56]
The truth about Tulip Mania - BBC
May 12, 2018 · But was Tulip Mania - a parable of greed compared to the recent ... 1637. Prof Goldgar says the crash was probably caused by ...Missing: gullibility | Show results with:gullibility
[57]
[PDF] BUBBLES AND GULLIBILITY
The South Sea Bubble involved investors putting money into an "undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is," reflecting high credulity.
[58]
Salem Witch Trials | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
Aug 4, 2023 · How the Salem Witch Trials started. Mass hysteria erupted in Salem Village, Massachusetts, in January 1692 when the specter of witchcraft was ...Missing: credulity | Show results with:credulity<|separator|>
[59]
The Cottingley Fairies - Historic UK
The cousins were both still alive in the 1980s, and finally Elsie confessed to the hoax, probably with some relief, in 1983. What had undoubtedly started out as ...
[60]
The Cottingley fairy hoax of 1917 is a case study in how smart ...
A story about how a single, relatively small act of deception can lead a large group of people to lose control over the truth.Missing: credulity | Show results with:credulity
[61]
Ponzi Schemes: How They Work and What We Can Learn
Jan 31, 2019 · A Ponzi scheme—named for Charles Ponzi, who defrauded investors in the 1920s—is an investment fraud that pays profits to earlier investors ...
[62]
Spiritualism | The Jackie Gleason Collection
The Spiritualist Movement began in the 19 th century and persisted into the early 20 th century. It was characterized by a pop culture fascination with mediums ...
[63]
Understanding the 1920s Spiritualism Revival
Oct 14, 2021 · ' Spiritualism is defined as a relatively modern religion that is based on the beliefs that the spirits of the dead exist, and both have the ...
[64]
The perfect storm that led to the Jonestown massacre
Jun 14, 2024 · (Cult Massacre: One Day in Jonestown will premiere June 17 on Hulu and August 14 on National Geographic.) Wildly charismatic, Jones preached ...Missing: credulity | Show results with:credulity
[65]
Jonestown - FBI
The makeshift settlement carved out of the jungle of Guyana by the charismatic Jim Jones and his cult-like following called the Peoples Temple.Missing: credulity | Show results with:credulity
[66]
New FTC Data Show a Big Jump in Reported Losses to Fraud to ...
Mar 10, 2025 · Consumers reported losing more money to investment scams—$5.7 billion—than any other category in 2024. That amount represents a 24% increase ...Missing: modern examples 2020s
[67]
Crypto scams thrive in 2024 on back of 'pig butchering' and AI - CNBC
Feb 13, 2025 · A report by Chainalysis released Thursday estimated that cryptocurrency scams amounted to $9.9 billion in 2024, with that figure likely to ...
[68]
https://www.getastra.com/blog/security-audit/phishing-attack-statistics/
[69]
81 Phishing Attack Statistics 2025: The Ultimate Insight - Astra Security
Aug 19, 2025 · Phishing email statistics suggest that nearly 1.2% of all emails sent are malicious, which in numbers translated to 3.4 billion phishing emails daily.
[70]
FTC Data Show a More Than Four-Fold Increase in Reports of ...
Aug 7, 2025 · FTC Data Show a More Than Four-Fold Increase in Reports of Impersonation Scammers Stealing Tens and Even Hundreds of Thousands from Older Adults.Missing: modern examples 2020s
[71]
New FTC Data Spotlight highlights text scams that may target your ...
Apr 16, 2025 · In 2024 people reported $470 million in losses to text scams, more than five times the amount reported in 2020. Check out the Data Spotlight ...Missing: modern 2020s
[72]
Social media and the spread of misinformation - Oxford Academic
Mar 31, 2025 · Third, internet robots or 'bots' are known to automate the publication of misinformation and disinformation on social media. Social bots imitate ...Missing: empirical credulity
[73]
Russian Disinformation Campaign “DoppelGänger” Unmasked
Sep 3, 2024 · The battle against deception, disinformation and misinformation requires collective action, transparency, and an unwavering commitment to truth.Missing: credulity | Show results with:credulity<|separator|>
[74]
AI-driven disinformation: policy recommendations for democratic ...
Jul 31, 2025 · 2630, dubbed the “Fake News Bill,” to address online misinformation and abuse. After delays, the bill regained momentum in 2023 with ...Missing: credulity | Show results with:credulity
[75]
The Impact of Misinformation on Social Media in the Context of ...
Jul 31, 2025 · There are several terms to describe inaccurate information, such as fake news, rumors, propaganda, infodemic, disinformation, and misinformation ...
[76]
Development and validation of the Revised Epistemic Trust, Mistrust ...
Sep 1, 2025 · Mistrust and credulity partially mediated the relationship between childhood adversity and psychopathology, with stronger mediation effects for ...
[77]
The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance ...
Jan 12, 2022 · We use the term misinformation as an umbrella term referring to any information that turns out to be false and reserve the term disinformation ...
[78]
Psychological Inoculation for Credibility Assessment, Sharing ... - NIH
Based on 42 independent studies with 42,530 subjects, we found that psychological inoculation effectively reduces misinformation credibility assessment (d=–0.36 ...<|separator|>
[79]
The Use of Critical Thinking to Identify Fake News - NIH
The purpose of this study is to investigate the current state of knowledge on the use of critical thinking to identify fake news.
[80]
Critical thinking and misinformation vulnerability - Oxford Academic
Oct 15, 2024 · Our study investigates how interventions designed to enhance critical thinking can affect individuals' susceptibility to misinformation.
[81]
Media Literacy Interventions Improve Resilience to Misinformation
Oct 4, 2024 · This study finds that media literacy interventions generally improve resilience to misinformation (d = 0.60). Specifically, the interventions ...
[82]
How to teach students critical thinking skills to combat ...
Sep 1, 2024 · Research conducted in Germany and Italy also found that lateral reading helped news consumers identify false information online, and that pop-up ...Key Points · Media Literacy Reform · A New Book For Teens On...
[83]
Mastering critical thinking skills is strongly associated with the ability ...
Results: A strong correlation was found in the pre-intervention phase between mastery of critical thinking concepts and the ability to identify misinformation ...
[84]
Fake news detection on social media: the predictive role of ... - NIH
Apr 26, 2023 · This study aimed to investigate the predictive role of critical thinking dispositions and new media literacies on the ability to detect fake news on social ...
[85]
Epistemic Humility—Knowing Your Limits in a Pandemic
Apr 13, 2020 · Epistemic humility is an intellectual virtue. It is grounded in the realization that our knowledge is always provisional and incomplete—and that ...
[86]
Predictors and consequences of intellectual humility - PMC
Jun 27, 2022 · Cumulatively, research suggests that intellectual humility can decrease polarization, extremism and susceptibility to conspiracy beliefs, ...
[87]
[PDF] Epistemic Humility and Non-Knowledge in Political Decision
Epistemic humility as a decision-making strategy stresses that decisions are multi-spherical and multi-directional with several possible consequences ...Missing: research | Show results with:research
[88]
Too humble for words - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH
Sep 11, 2023 · I show that inducing intellectual humility causes people inappropriately to lower their confidence in beliefs that are actually justified for them.