This paper presents a comprehensive examination of human compliance with normative principles of argumentation across two experimental studies. The first study investigated whether fundamental argumentation principles such as anonymity, independence, void precedence, and maximality align with human reasoning. Additionally, it explored whether graph-based representations of arguments facilitate better understanding and adherence to these principles compared to textual representations of arguments alone and examined the role of individual cognitive differences in compliance with these principles. Our experiments revealed that graph-based representations significantly improved compliance with argumentation principles, particularly among individuals with higher cognitive reflection. The second study replicated and extended the first study’s findings, introducing new principles such as skeptical precedence and simple reinstatement, and explored the effects of presenting arguments solely in graphical form, as well as the impact of a short tutorial on argumentation theory. The study also assessed participants’ ability to perform graphical tasks and how this influenced their compliance with normative principles. Results partially replicated the first study’s findings, confirming that graphical representations enhance compliance, but also revealed that the effect does not generalize to the new principles. We found evidence that in the absence of a graphical representation, performing graphical tasks can improve compliance with principles; especially drawing the argumentation graph. Moreover, a brief tutorial significantly improved performance on several principles, indicating that even minimal instruction can enhance understanding and compliance. However, the difficulties observed with the simple reinstatement principle hint that the participants’ intuition about the notion of defense diverges significantly from that of the researchers and that more careful thoughts must be put in crafting them. These studies collectively suggest that while argumentation principles can be intuitive to some extent, their comprehension and application are significantly influenced by the instruction given as well as by graphical representations and processes used to obtain them. These findings have important implications for the design of future argumentation-based tools and our understanding of how to bridge human reasoning and formal argumentation.

Traditional, complementary and alternative medicine (TCAM) encompasses a wide range of healthcare practices that are typically not part of “conventional” medicine and that are widely used in the general population. The aim of the study was to test for the most appropriate latent structure of a comprehensive instrument measuring TCAM use and to test its robustness in community samples. The sample for Study 1 consisted of n = 583 respondents from Serbia, and for Study 2, data were collected from n = 1152 participants in three countries (Serbia, Bosnia, and the UK). In both studies, TCAM use was assessed via the TCAM-22 instrument. In Study 1, via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), we identified a hierarchical structure with a second-order factor subsuming four first-order factors (alternative medical systems, new-age medicine, natural product-based medicine, and rituals/customs). We replicated the hierarchical four-factor structure in Study 2 via a multigroup CFA approach (MGCFA), where we found metric invariance of the structure across three countries. The obtained measurement invariance suggests that TCAM practices convey similar psychological meanings across countries/cultures and have similar patterns of use. Thus, the proposed instrument can serve as a valid tool to assess TCAM use in cross-cultural research.

Despite insufficient evidence base for some of its practices, traditional, complementary, and alternative medicine (TCAM) use is rapidly growing; psychological roots of this trend are still under-studied. Based on previous research, input from TCAM practitioners, and content analysis of online media, we developed a comprehensive instrument to measure the use of TCAM and administered it to an online community sample (N=583). Factor analysis indicated four domains of TCAM use, in line with theoretical taxonomies: Alternative medical systems, Natural/biological products and practices, New Age medicine, and Rituals/Customs, all converging toward a common tendency. Irrational beliefs and cognitive biases, especially magical health beliefs and naturalness bias, predicted unique variance in both TCAM attitudes and overall TCAM use, above sociodemographic variables, reported health status, and ideological beliefs. Furthermore, each domain of TCAM use, although differing slightly in sociodemographic/psychological profile, was consistently associated with an irrational mindset, even after controlling for other factors. This provides strong evidence for exploring psychological susceptibility to the use of traditional, complementary, and alternative medicine.

Externalizing problems include various forms of behavior characterized by rule-breaking, aggression, disregard for others and hyperactivity. Previous research has shown inconsistent findings regarding the life satisfaction of adolescents with elevated levels of externalizing symptoms. In this study, we examined if these problems predict adolescents' life satisfaction, and whether social support moderates this relationship. A total of 168 high-school aged adolescents participated in the study. We found that only hyperactivity ((3 =-.25, p = .006) and interaction of conduct problems and social support negatively predicted adolescents' life satisfaction ((3 =-.25, p = .004). Though it was not confirmed that increasing social support for troubled adolescents leads to higher levels of life satisfaction, we did notice a certain type of resilience to the lack of social support.

INTRODUCTION:The belief-bias effect is a tendency to evaluate syllogistic statements based on believability rather than on formal logic validity. Following this rationale, the study examines desirability bias as the tendency to evaluate syllogistic conclusions based on their desirability when reasoning is conducted on personality-relevant categorical syllogisms.METHODS:For this purpose, 60 syllogisms were constructed based on the items of the Big Five questionnaire. Syllogisms were subsequently categorized as desirable (e.g., "I empathize with others") and undesirable (e.g., "I am passive") based on their conclusion. In each task, the second premise and the conclusion were formulated in the first person to increase a respondent's identification with the content. A total of 300 university students (Mage = 20.08, SD = 2.02) participated in the study.RESULTS:A 2 (syllogism validity: valid, invalid) × 2 (syllogism desirability: desirable, undesirable) repeated measures ANOVA was employed. The analysis showed a greater tendency to accept desirable conclusions on valid syllogisms (valid desirable rather than valid undesirable) and reject undesirable conclusions on invalid syllogisms (invalid undesirable rather than invalid desirable).CONCLUSION:These findings have implications for socially desirable responding in cognitive tasks, which may be further developed as a source of self-relevant content as well as for further extension of belief bias in the form of desirability bias.

When they are asked to test a given hypothesis, individuals tend to be biased towards confirming evidence. This phenomenon has been documented on different cognitive components: information search, weighing of evidence, and memory recall. However, the interpretation of these observations has been debated, and it remains unclear whether they truly reflect a confirmation bias (as opposed to e.g., a bias towards positive information). In the present study we aimed at evaluating whether these biases might be subtended by a common factor. We adapted three classic experimental paradigms on hypothesis testing (Wason selection task, 2-4-6 task, and interviewee task) and examined the relation between these biases using an individual differences approach. Participants (N = 200) completed a total of nine behavioral tasks, in which each component of confirmation bias was measured in each of the three experimental paradigms. Correlations and factor analyses within a multitrait–multimethod framework indicated greater convergence of bias scores within each component across paradigms, than within experimental paradigms. This suggests that a common factor underlies the different measurements of confirmation bias across experimental paradigms, at least to some extent. In these paradigms, thus, biases towards confirming evidence may truly reflect a confirmation bias.

A growing body of evidence suggests that questionable health behaviors- not following medical recommendations and resorting to non-evidence based treatments—are more frequent than previously thought, and that they seem to have strong psychological roots. We thus aimed to: 1) document the lifetime prevalence of intentional non-adherence to medical recommendations (iNAR) and use of traditional, complementary and alternative medicine (TCAM) in Serbia and 2) understand how they relate to ‘distal’ psychological factors—personality traits and thinking dispositions, and ‘proximal’ factors—a set of beliefs and cognitive biases under the term ‘irrational mindset’. In this preregistered cross-sectional study on a nationally representative sample (N = 1003), we observed high lifetime prevalence of iNAR (91.3%) and TCAM (99.2%). Irrational beliefs, especially magical health beliefs and medical conspiracy theories, were the strongest predictors of TCAM. They also mediated the relation between Disintegration/lower cognitive reflectiveness and TCAM. High Disintegration, and low Conscientiousness predicted iNAR directly, whilst negative experiences with the healthcare system facilitated both types of questionable health practices. The established psychological profile of people prone to questionable health behaviors and the fact they can be tracked to negative experiences with the system can be used to tailor public health communications.

When they are asked to test a given hypothesis, individuals tend to be biased towards confirming evidence. This phenomenon has been documented on different cognitive components: information search, weighing of evidence, and memory recall. However, the interpretation of these observations has been debated, and it remains unclear whether they truly reflect a confirmation bias (as opposed to e.g., a bias towards positive information). In the present study we aimed at evaluating whether these biases might be subtended by a common factor. We adapted three classic experimental paradigms on hypothesis testing (Wason selection task, 2-4-6 task, and interviewee task) and examined the relation between these biases using an individual differences approach. Participants (N = 200) completed a total of nine behavioral tasks, in which each component of confirmation bias was measured in each of the three experimental paradigms. Correlations and factor analyses within a multitrait-multimethod framework indicated greater convergence of bias scores within each component across paradigms, than within experimental paradigms. This suggests that a common factor underlies the different measurements of confirmation bias across experimental paradigms, at least to some extent. In these paradigms, thus, biases towards confirming evidence may truly reflect a confirmation bias.

Irrational beliefs encompass a broad set of beliefs that lack verifiable empirical evidence and contradict scientific principles, often grouped into conspiratorial, pseudoscientific, and paranormal domains. This paper investigated whether these beliefs are rooted in a set of cognitive biases. Across four studies, low socioeconomic status, right-wing political orientation, and religiousness accounted for a substantial portion of irrational beliefs variance. However, cognitive biases consistently contributed incrementally to their prediction, with naturalness bias, omission bias, commitment bias, and the overconfidence effect emerging as the most robust predictors. Our findings indicate the nuanced nature of these relationships, as the predictive power of cognitive biases was consistently higher for conspiracist and pseudoscientific beliefs in comparison to paranormal ones.

PURPOSE:A rise in strokes worldwide means that the number of people affected by aphasia is increasing. Early and accurate diagnosis of aphasia is crucial for recovery. Presently, there are no dedicated screening tests tailored for evaluating aphasia in Serbian-speaking individuals. This paper presents and describes the psychometric properties of the Serbian Aphasia Screening Test (SAST), a novel aphasia screening tool designed specifically for Serbian speakers. This initiative fills the gap in aphasia assessment tools for the Serbian population, providing a comprehensive and culturally sensitive approach to the evaluation of language disorders.METHOD:Data using the SAST were collected from 240 participants: 120 Serbian speakers with aphasia after stroke compared to 120 neurotypical individuals. The assessment included the following subtests: conversation, verbal automatized sequences, auditory comprehension, visual confrontation naming, responsive naming, repetition of words, repetition of sentences, oral word reading, oral sentence reading, reading comprehension, and writing. The main objectives were to ascertain the psychometric qualities of the SAST, including inter-rater reliability of scoring, test-retest reliability, reliability of the individual subtests, overall test reliability, and inter-correlations among subtests. Additionally, the study evaluated the discriminatory capability of the SAST in distinguishing between individuals with aphasia and neurotypical controls, as well as between individuals with different types of aphasia.RESULTS:The findings revealed that the SAST has excellent inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency. There were statistically significant differences between individuals with aphasia and neurotypical controls on all SAST subtests. Furthermore, the study identified significant differences in language profiles among participants with different types of aphasia. The significant correlations between scores on the SAST and on the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE) suggest good convergent validity of the SAST.CONCLUSIONS:The results underscore the robust psychometric properties of this novel screening assessment (SAST) and its ability to effectively discriminate between diverse linguistic abilities within different aphasia syndromes in Serbian speaking individuals.

The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between sex, empathy, systemizing, and autistic traits in primary school children. The sample included 353 primary school children aged 7-11 years. The children's versions of the Empathy Quotient - EQ-C, Systemizing Quotient - SQ-C, and children's version of the Autism Spectrum Quotient AQ- C were used as primary outcome measures. Girls had higher empathy, while boys had higher autistic traits. Empathy and systemizing were moderately positively correlated, but both were good predictors of autistic traits. The effect of sex on autistic traits was mediated by empathy as well as by the difference between systemizing and empathy. These results partially support assumptions of the Empathizing-Systemizing theory and the Hypersystemizing theory of autism, which should be further evaluated in a population with the autism spectrum disorder.

Play is a natural state in which children enjoy and practice various cognitive, social, and motor skills. Play observations in the natural learning environment helps practitioners and researchers to develop appropriate intervention. Previous research based on observations in the natural learning environment indicates a large gap between the behavior of children with autism and that of their peers. Although autism occurs relatively frequently in twins, research on their play interaction is scarce. The aim of this research was to determine the dominant type of play and interaction in three pairs of twins with autism spectrum disorder in an everyday school environment, the duration of interactions, the most frequent initiators of interactions, and whether there was a difference with regard to whom the social interaction was directed. Six boys with autism, i.e., three pairs of twins, participated in this research. Data was collected by employing questionnaires (A general questionnaire; ZQYT; GARS-3), as well as through observations (The Social Interaction Coding Protocol). The twins? behavior and interaction were recorded by a video camera. The results showed that twins were most frequently involved in manipulative and repetitive play, somewhat less frequently in relational play, while they did not participate in symbolic play. There was no statistically significant difference in the duration of interactions when the initiator was a twin compared to those initiated by another child, while interactions initiated by a teacher lasted significantly longer. The twins interacted with their co-twin least frequently. Furthermore, research results indicated that simple socially directed behavior was the most common type of interaction, followed by coordinated socially directed behavior. The obtained results led to the conclusion that twins with autism most frequently participate in two types of play and that the duration of their interaction varies depending on whether the initiator is a child or an adult. In children with autism, play has a significant role in the educational context. Thus, the data obtained by observing the play of twins with autism is significant for practitioners when evaluating how play characteristics can be used to plan interventions for improving the social interactions of children with autism.

People resort to various questionable health practices to preserve or regain health - they intentionally do not adhere to medical recommendations (e.g. self-medicate or modify the prescribed therapies; iNAR), or use traditional/complementary/alternative (TCAM) medicine. As retrospective reports overestimate adherence and suffer from recall and desirability bias, we tracked the variations in daily questionable health behaviors and compared them to their retrospectively reported lifetime use. We also preregistered and explored their relations to a wide set of psychological predictors - distal (personality traits and basic thinking dispositions) and proximal (different unfounded beliefs and biases grouped under the term irrational mindset). A community sample (N = 224) tracked daily engagement in iNAR and TCAM use for 14 days, resulting in 3136 data points. We observed a high rate of questionable health practices over the 14 days; daily engagement rates roughly corresponded to lifetime ones. Both iNAR and TCAM were weakly, but robustly positively related. Independent of the assessment method, an irrational mindset was the most important predictor of TCAM use. For iNAR, however, psychological predictors emerged as relevant only when assessed retrospectively. Our study offers insight into questionable health behaviors from both a within and between-person perspective and highlights the importance of their psychological roots.

We examined principles of graded argumentation semantics (independence, anonymity, void precedence, and maximality) to explore if (a) they realistically model human reasoning, (b) graphical representation of arguments facilitates compliance with the principles, (c) there is a positive correlation between compliance with different principles, and (d) this compliance is related to cognitive reflection, need for cognition and faith in intuition. The participants (N = 96) were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions - the graph group was presented with textual and graphical representations, while the second group was presented only with textual arguments. Our results indicate that there are major differences in the compliance with the several argumentation principles studied in this paper. However, compliance with argumentation principles was consistently better and more consistent in the graph group. Moreover, cognitive reflection correlated with compliance to some principles, but only in the graph group.

It is well established that people tend to favor confirming strategies in hypothesis testing. However, little is known about individual differences in this topic. The present study has two aims: (a) adapting existing experimental tasks on hypothesis testing to measure individual differences, (b) investigating the convergent and discriminant properties of these measures within a multitrait–multimethod framework using a confirmatory factor analysis approach. Participants (N = 200) completed a total of nine behavioral tasks: three tasks (two rule hypothesis testing tasks and a trait hypothesis testing task) measuring three aspects of confirmation bias in information processing (information search, weighing of evidence, memory recall). Scores to most tasks reached satisfactory levels of internal consistency, showing that individual differences in confirmation bias can be reliably measured. The multitrait–multimethod analyses provided moderate evidence for the convergent validity and small to moderate evidence for the discriminant validity of the measures. These findings reveal that confirmation bias is a more unified phenomenon than what has been suggested.

The study aimed to investigate the role of personality, thinking styles, and conspiracy mentality in health-related behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic, i.e., recommended health behaviors according to COVID-19 guidelines and engagement in pseudoscientific practices related to COVID-19. Basic personality space was defined by the HEXACO model complemented by Disintegration, which represents psychotic-like experiences and behaviors reconceptualized as a personality trait. Mediation analyses conducted on a convenient sample from the general population recruited via social media and by snowballing (N = 417) showed that engagement in pseudoscientific behaviors was predicted by high Disintegration. However, this relationship was entirely mediated by high experiential and low rational thinking styles. Adherence to health practices recommended by COVID-19 guidelines was predicted by high Honesty traits, while low Disintegration had both direct and indirect effects through conspiracy mentality.