Looking for Truth: General Scientific Reasoning Predicts Endorsement of Medical and Political Conspiracy Theories

Abstract

In an era of pervasive misinformation, understanding the cognitive factors that reduce susceptibility to conspiracy theories is of growing societal and scientific importance. This study investigates whether scientific reasoning – as a domain-general epistemic skill – predicts belief in both medical (e.g., COVID-19-related) and political (e.g., Ukraine war-related) conspiracy theories. Using a sample of 409 Slovak adults, we examine whether scientific reasoning explains variance in conspiracy beliefs beyond what is accounted for by analytic thinking alone. Hierarchical regressions show that scientific reasoning consistently predicts lower endorsement of both medical and political conspiracy theories, outperforming analytic thinking, which only predicts political ones. These findings support the view that evaluating claims based on principles such as testability and evidence is a generalizable cognitive asset. Our results underscore the need to cultivate domain-general scientific reasoning skills, not just analytic thinking, to counter epistemically suspect beliefs across diverse contexts.