Epistemically Unwarranted Beliefs Scale, development and evidence of validity in the Chilean population.

Epistemically Unwarranted Beliefs Scale, development and evidence of validity in the Chilean population. | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Epistemically Unwarranted Beliefs Scale, development and evidence of validity in the Chilean population. Rodrigo Ferrer-Urbina, Herman Elgueta, Marcos Carmona-Halty, Geraldy Sepúlveda-Páez, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6227082/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The study of epistemically unwarranted beliefs (EUB) (i.e., paranormal, pseudoscientific and conspiracy beliefs) has become relevant due to the negative effects they have produced on people's health, as evidenced in the covid-19 pandemic. However, there is no instrument with appropriate and updated validity evidence for its evaluation in Latin American people. Because of this, the present study aims to develop a brief scale to analyze general epistemically unwarranted beliefs that do not depend on local factors. A total of 634 adults from five Chilean cities participated in the study. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the final structure of the Epistemically Unwarranted Beliefs Scale (EUBS) considers 9 items with three related factors. In addition, results showed good internal consistency (CFI > .95; TLI > .95; RMSEA < .07), gender invariance, and evidence of validity based on the inverse relation with the cognitive reflection test. Finally, implications for the theoretical construct and possible limitations of the scale are discussed. Psychology Epistemically unwarranted beliefs Measurement Scale development gender invariance Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Belief in ghosts, in magnetotherapy or in great conspiracies for the total domination of humanity are beliefs that, despite being far from modern rationality, are widely accepted by a significant part of the population. This type of beliefs are known as epistemically unwarranted beliefs (EUB; or epistemically suspect beliefs), defined, in general terms, as those beliefs that lack empirical support so far ( 1 – 3 ). In other words, these beliefs do not consider the totality of evidence and knowledge available to those seeking to understand reality at any given time. Although many of these beliefs have been in the humanity since ancient times, however the massification of the communication medias, particularly with the proliferation of social networks, has greatly increased their speed of propagation and reach ( 4 ). Although some of these beliefs may be innocuous, several negative effects of adhering to them have been evidenced. For example, conspiracy beliefs were negatively related to health protective behavior ( 5 ) and enhanced pseudoscientific practices as a form of treatment for covid-19 virus ( 6 ). Pseudoscientific beliefs were negatively related to scientific literacy ( 7 ) and to endorsement of alternative medicine medical treatments ( 8 ). Paranormal beliefs were positively related to sleep variables (i.e., sleep paralysis, lucid dreaming, hypnagogic hallucinations) ( 9 ) and to cognitive biases (i.e., jumping to conclusions, catastrophizing, dichotomous thinking) ( 10 ). In addition, it has been shown that, in aggregate, EUBs are negatively related to cognitive ability ( 11 ), and cognitive reflection ( 12 ). Specifically, interventions aimed at developing cognitive reflection have been shown to cause a decrease in EUB ( 13 – 15 ). Epistemically unwarranted beliefs are differentiated by domains, being commonly referenced ( 2 ): 1) paranormal beliefs, such as beliefs about physical, biological or psychological phenomena with fundamental characteristics that do not correspond with their ontology (e.g., premonitory thoughts) ( 16 ); 2) pseudoscientific beliefs, such as beliefs in pseudo-theories, i.e., statements that lack scientific evidence, or deny that which has been scientifically proven (e.g., homeopathy) ( 17 ); and 3) conspiracy beliefs, which point to theories about the existence of secret plots that explain social circumstances (e.g., explanations about the attack on the twin towers) ( 18 ). Despite this differentiation by domains, the available evidence shows a strong relationship between them, so that if, for example, a person believes in conspiracy theories, he or she is likely to adhere to paranormal and pseudoscientific beliefs, and vice versa ( 1 , 2 , 19 ), which makes sense to consider them globally. Although the evidence supports the cooccurrence of EUBs, the measurement instruments that approach them tend to focus on a specific domain, with the exception of the scales proposed by Lobato et al. ( 2 ), Dyer y Hall ( 13 ) and Huete-Pérez et al. ( 1 ). Lobato et al. ( 2 ) formulated the first multidimensional scale of epistemically unwarranted beliefs, which integrates pseudoscientific, paranormal and conspiracy beliefs. This questionnaire was developed based on existing questionnaires. Although it provided evidence of the interrelationship between these beliefs, the proposal did not present robust psychometric evidence, except for some reliability estimates. Subsequently, Dyer and Hall ( 13 ) developed the Inventory of Epistemically Unwarranted Beliefs (IEUB), which consists of 5 dimensions (paranormal, religion, health, extraordinary life forms, conspiracy theories and ghosts), but did not provide evidence of scale reliability and/or validity. Finally, Huete-Pérez et al. ( 1 ), developed the Popular epistemically unwarranted belief inventory (PEUBI), with the intention of measuring epistemically unwarranted beliefs in Spain, based on 5 dimensions that emerged from an exploratory factor analysis (superstitions, occultism and pseudoscience, traditional religion, extraordinary life forms and conspiracy theories), which, although it reported robust evidence of validity, the authors emphasize the idiosyncratic nature of the scale. In Chile, although there are no instruments with evidence of validity that evaluate the EUB, there are several studies that have considered how this type of beliefs affects the Chilean population, showing the relevance of this construct for the local context. For example, Castillo-Riquelme et al. ( 20 ), using Epstein's subscales of magical thinking, naive optimism and esoteric thinking ( 20 ), showed that paranormal beliefs are positively related to the credibility of fake news. Halpern et al. ( 20 ) used the Conspiracy Mentality scale based on the Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire (CMQ; ( 21 )) and found that conspiracy beliefs explain susceptibility to disinformation. Salazar-Fernandez et al. ( 22 ) developed the validation of a scale on conspiracy beliefs regarding the covid-19 vaccine (CBS Scale), demonstrating that conspiracy beliefs predict beliefs about the effectiveness of covid-19 vaccines. Finally, Armstrong-Gallegos et al. ( 23 ) used the survey conducted by Gini et al. ( 24 ) that includes questions on general and neurodevelopmental neuromyths (i.e., pseudoscientific beliefs). It should be noted that, within the EUB research in Chile, there is ample literature on conspiracy beliefs compared to paranormal and pseudoscientific beliefs, the latter being the ones with the least scientific research to date. In this scenario, where the relevance of studying the EUB is evident, the purpose of this work is to enrich the availability of tools for their study, inspired by the original proposal of Lobato et al. ( 2 ), because it is the most widely used in the literature, with the distinguishing of: 1) offer evidence of validity, according to the state of the art of psychometrics, for the interpretation of the scores in the local context; 2) have a wider context for use it, because the adapted content transcend local´s idiosyncrasy; and 3) provide a short scale for be included easily in all kind of studies. Therefore, the present study aims to develop a brief scale, for its easy integration in batteries of studies, to evaluate the EUB in the Chilean population or equivalent. Materials and methods Participants A total of 634 adults participated in the present study, of whom 30.1% (n = 191) reported living in Arica, 27.9% (n = 177) reported living in Santiago, 14.8% (n = 94) reported living in Antofagasta, 14.6% (n = 93) reported living in Talca and 12.6% (n = 80) reported living in Punta Arenas. The mean age was 21.9 years (SD = 4.46), among whom 57.2% (n = 363) identified as female, 39.4% (n = 250) as male and 3.4% (n = 22) as non-binary or other; 93.9% (n = 596) were university students; 46. 8% (n = 289) considered themselves Catholic, Christian or other religion and 53.2% (n = 329) declared themselves as agnostic, atheist or no religion; 49.6% (n = 289) self-identified politically with the left, 8.2% (n = 48) with the center, 15.6% (n = 91) with the right and 26.6% (n = 155) as apolitical. Procedure Initially, a translation and back-translation of the 37 items proposed by the Lobato et al. scale ( 2 ) was carried out. From this translated version, a content analysis was performed by 3 expert judges from the Universidad de Magallanes, who established 5 exclusion criteria: 1) items focused on events that can be considered culturally specific (e.g., President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, who acted alone); 2) items that may be age-limited (e.g., The musician Elvis Presley is dead); 3) items that allude to religious aspects (e.g., Human beings have souls that continue to exist after the body dies); 4) items that allude to judgments related to hate ideology (e.g., A person chooses to be homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual) and 5) in the pseudoscience dimension, it was decided to discard the inverse items, since it was considered that having scientific beliefs is not necessarily the inverse of having pseudoscientific beliefs (e.g., The beginning of the universe is best explained by the Big Bang Theory). Additionally, some items were adapted in their wording to offer greater clarity to the target population. Due to the fact that the conspiracy and pseudoscience dimensions were underrepresented, 2 items were created and incorporated for the conspiracy dimension (i.e. “There are secret groups of powerful people who make the most important decisions about how the world is managed at the international level” and “There are treatments that are effective for treating cancer but are hidden for economic purposes”) and 1 item for the pseudoscience dimension (i.e. “It is necessary for an ordinary person to perform detoxification diets on a daily basis”). Then, the pilot 22-item scale was applied. The item analyses allowed detecting items with low variability and/or low homogeneity indexes, from which it was decided to discard 9 items from the paranormal dimension (e.g., Creatures popularly known as Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and/or the Chupacabra exist) and 1 item from the pseudoscience dimension (i.e., Childhood vaccines are one causal factor in the development of autism). Finally, the final version applied and analyzed in the present study consisted of 12 items, homogeneously distributed in the 3 dimensions proposed by Lobato et al ( 2 ). Data collection was carried out between August and December 2023. Five surveyors were trained (one for each city in Chile where data were collected) who assisted the researcher during data collection. A diffusion process was carried out, through posters, to motivate participation in the study. Those who signed up to participate were provided with an informed consent form detailing the objective of the research and the confidentiality and anonymity of their participation. The response procedure lasted approximately 25 minutes and participants received an economic incentive upon completion of their participation. The Scientific Ethics Committee of the Universidad de Tarapacá granted ethical approval to this research, framed in the regular FONDECYT project n°1220664. Instruments Epistemically unwarranted beliefs scale (EUBS) was developed to assess people's adherence to this type of beliefs. The final version of the questionnaire consists of three dimensions: pseudoscientific beliefs (e.g., Most humans only use about 10% of their brain), conspiracy beliefs (e.g., There are secret groups of powerful people who make the most important decisions about how the world is run on an international level) and paranormal beliefs (i.e., Astrology provides valuable information about how people are), with 4 items each, 12 items in total. The response options have a five-point Likert format (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree), where higher scores translate as more adherence to the EUB. Cognitive reflection test (CRT), version developed and extended from the original test proposed by Frederick ( 25 ) and the CRT-2 developed by Thomson and Oppenheimer ( 26 ). This test evaluates cognitive reflection, i.e., the ability of individuals to suppress automatic responses that seem obvious to find the correct answer. It consists of 7 items (e.g., A sheep farmer had 15 sheep. Except for 8, all of them died. How many live sheep did he have left?), extracted from both versions and adapted to the local and cultural context of our target population. The adaptation considered factors such as the use of local currency, the substitution of unfamiliar cultural references for more recognizable ones, and the adaptation of names and situations to make them more natural and closer to the target population. Analysis First, descriptive statistics, normality tests, corrected homogeneity index and reliability were analyzed. Then, in order to establish evidence of validity of the internal structure of EUBS, an Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM) with TARGET rotation ( 27 ) was used and the weighted least squares estimation method (WLSMV) was performed to establish evidence of validity from the internal structure of the test. This estimation method is robust for non-normal discrete variables ( 28 , 29 ). The reliability of each dimension was estimated using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega coefficients ( 30 ). Then, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used using WLSMV as the extraction method, considering categorical variables ( 27 ) to test two configurations of the factor structure (unifactor model and bifactor model). Subsequently, to identify whether it is possible to interpret the scores in an equivalent way between people of different genders, an invariance analysis was performed between the majority groups (i.e., men and women), based on the CFA model restrictyions (i.e., metric and scalar), considering decreases in the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of less than 0.010 as evidence of invariance ( 31 ). Finally, to obtain evidence of validity based on the relationship with other variables, a structural equation model was performed, starting from the polychoric correlations and using TARGET rotation and the WLSMV extraction method, using CRT as the independent variable. We considered several common goodness-of-fit indices to evaluate the model fit: Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), CFI, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and their respective 90% Confidence Interval (90% CI). In the case of CFI and TLI, values ≥ 0.95 are interpreted to reflect adequate fit, and in the case of RMSEA, values of ≤ .070 are indicative of adequate fit ( 32 ). In particular, descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and homogeneity index were obtained using Jamovi v2.0.0 software ( 33 ), whereas ESEM and CFA analyses were performed using Mplus v8.2 ( 34 ). Results Evidence of validity based on internal structure The 12-item ESEM of the EUBS (M1) showed fit indexes aligned with the recommendations of the literature (32) (see Table 1), however, there are cross-loadings, items with low factor loadings according to the factor to which it theoretically corresponds (i.e., PS4 and CO4) and one item that overrepresents one of the factors (i.e., PA4) (see Table 2). Because of this, a second model is tested with 9 items of the EUBS (M2). The ESEM of the second model shows greater clarity of the scale factors and low cross-loadings, compared to M1. In addition, it shows satisfactory fit indexes (32) (see Table 1). Table 1 ESEM and CFA fit indices for EUBS χ2 df χ 2 / df RMSEA 90% CI CFI TLI SRMR M1 74.746* 33 2.265 .045 [.031, .058] .992 .984 .019 M2 25.801* 12 2.150 .043 [.019, .065] .996 .988 .014 M3 188.973* 27 6.999 .097 [.084, .111] .954 .938 .042 M4 96.694* 18 5.372 .083 [.067, .100] .978 .955 .029 Note: *p<.001; M1 = ESEM 12 items; M2 = ESEM 9 items; M3 = Unifactorial model; M4 = Bifactor model; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; 90% CI = Confidence Interval; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual. Table 2 Descriptive statistics and item-level factor loadings of M1 and M2 Descriptive statistics Factor loadings M (SD) S K SW M1 M2 PS CO PA PS CO PA PS1 2.53 (0.96) .024 -0.18 .868 .549 .116 .079 .769 .158 -.047 PS2 2.59 (1.48) .300 -1.40 .840 .481 .127 .104 .396 .065 .221 PS3 2.17 (1.03) .125 -0.61 .858 .685 .000 .118 .550 -.025 .237 PS4 2.64 (1.19) .206 -0.92 .905 .301 .283 -.056 CO1 3.43 (1.11) -.526 -0.36 .892 .049 .737 -.000 .126 .813 -.092 CO2 2.97 (1.30) -.056 -1.08 .905 .204 .615 -.058 .160 .507 .191 CO3 3.31 (0.99) -.241 -0.03 .893 -.090 .452 .237 -.077 .427 .252 CO4 2.47 (1.20) .357 -0.76 .886 .304 .290 .174 PA1 2.24 (1.19) .510 -0.84 .854 .352 -.179 .617 .312 -.148 .600 PA2 2.60 (1.32) .225 -1.17 .882 .102 .221 .535 .007 .177 .660 PA3 3.31 (1.22) -.328 -0.74 .904 -.060 .350 .419 -.059 .317 .423 PA4 2.76 (1.34) .070 -1.22 .889 -.200 -.079 .999 CO .513 - - .473 - - PA .623 .626 - .706 .629 - Note: *p<.001; M1 = ESEM 12 items; M2 = ESEM 9 items; M = media; SD = Standard deviation; S = Asymmetry; K = Kurtosis; SW = Shapiro-Wilk test; PS = Pseudoscience; CO = Conspiracy; PA = Paranormal. Then, using the 9-item version, two models are tested, one that assumes a latent factor underlying all items of the scale (i.e., unidimensional factor) (M3) and another one that proposes a bifactor model (M4), i.e., a structure of 1 global factor (i.e., epistemically unwarranted beliefs) and 3 specific factors (i.e., pseudoscientific, conspiracy and paranormal beliefs). According to the criteria of Hair et al.. (32), M4 fits better than M3 for the 9-item model. Figure 1 shows the factorial loadings of M4. In addition, the reduced 9-item epistemically unwarranted beliefs scale provided adequate internal consistency both for the overall score ( ω = 0,833; α = 0,837) and for each of its dimensions: pseudoscience beliefs ( ω = 0,696; α = 0,704), conspiracy beliefs ( ω = 0,696; α = 0,704) and paranormal beliefs ( ω = 0,680; α = 0,691) (35). Factor invariance according to gender CFI differentials showed no decrease in fit greater than .010 in the metric and scalar models compared with the configural model (see Table 3) (31). This suggests equivalence in factor loadings and factor intercepts between those who identified as female and male, indicating that the 9 EUBS items have consistent meaning across both groups. Table 3 Fit indexes for multi-group CFA of the EUBS by gender χ2 df χ 2 / df RMSEA 90% CI CFI TLI SRMR CMs ΔCFI M5 149.507* 48 3.114 .083 [.068, .098] .857 .786 .055 M6 154.760* 54 2.866 .078 [.064, .093] .858 .811 .058 M6-M5 .001 M7 164.431* 60 2.741 .075 [.062, .089] .853 .824 .059 M7-M6 -.005 Note: *p<.001; M5 = Configural invariance; M6 = Metric invariance; M6 = Scalar invariance; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; 90% CI = Confidence Interval; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; CMs = Comparisons between models; ΔCFI = CFI differential. Evidence of validity based on the relationship with other variables The impact of cognitive reflection test on the 9-item version of the EUBS was assessed using a Set-ESEM model (see Figure 2). This model demonstrated satisfactory fit indicators (32): χ2(86) = 105.646; CFI = .995; TLI = .993; and RMSEA = .019 (confidence interval: .000 - .030), showing that it is an adequate representation of the observed relationships. According to the standardized effects, the 3 direct effects were statistically significant, showing a strong inverse effect ( γ = -.303, p < .001 for pseudoscientific beliefs; γ = -.177, p < .001 for conspiracy beliefs; and γ = -.545, p < .001 for paranormal beliefs). Discussion The main aim of this study was to develop a brief scale that measures epistemologically unwarranted beliefs in an adult population. The Epistemically Unwarranted Beliefs Scale (EUBS) (see appendix 1) presented a stable structure composed of three factors and nine items with acceptable levels of internal consistency. In this line, the fit of the final model, the magnitude of the factor loadings and the cross-loadings corroborate the three-dimensional structure of the model. In addition, the estimates of the reliability coefficients, for each dimension and for the overall scale, show a satisfactory level of consistency. The nine-item model also shows compatibility with a bifactor structure, i.e., it has a global factor, in this case, epistemologically unwarranted beliefs, and three specific factors that has some independence with the general factor, in this case the three beliefs studied (i.e., pseudoscientific, paranormal and conspiracy beliefs). Therefore, it is plausible to use the scale using its three specific and one general dimensions. These findings provide evidence for the structure of three related factors, i.e., pseudoscientific beliefs, paranormal beliefs, and conspiracy beliefs, in line with previous findings ( 1 , 2 , 19 ). Furthermore, the nine-item model shown metric and scalar invariance of measurement between genders (i.e., women and men). This means that factor loadings and variability of dimensions were equivalent between women and men. This provides the opportunity to investigate adherence to epistemically unwarranted beliefs without distinction in the score interpretation between men and women. Regarding validity evidence based on the relationship with other variables, CRT was found to correlate negatively with the EUBS dimensions, aligning with the theoretically expected direction and corroborating previous studies ( 19 , 36 , 37 ). In other words, people with epistemically unwarranted beliefs present lower capacity for cognitive reflection, understood as the ability to inhibit intuitive responses and reach the correct solution. Considering the significant impact of the EUB on people's health behaviors ( 5 , 6 ), the incorporation of this scale in health or education settings could be beneficial. The information provided by this scale could help to identify persons more likely to adhere to these beliefs, and to implement interventions to help mitigate the adverse effects of believing in paranormal, conspiracy, and pseudoscientific theories. For example, Dyer and Hall ( 13 ), in a university population, conducted a critical thinking intervention that significantly reduced pseudoscientific beliefs. In addition, its application in social psychology, public safety and media would allow understanding how EUBs influence institutional distrust, risk perception and the dissemination of misinformation. This would facilitate the design of strategies to promote critical thinking and strengthen citizen trust. The main limitations of this study refer to the representativeness of the sample. On the one hand, the participants in our study were recruited through a non-probabilistic sample, which could affect the accuracy of representativeness, however, it should be considered that the participants belong to five different regions of Chile, covering different geographical areas (i.e., north, center and south). On the other hand, most of the participants were university students, which could bias our results to a population with specific characteristics. Consequently, it is recommended that future psychometric studies using this instrument be extended to different age groups (e.g., adolescents, older adults) with different sociodemographic variables (e.g., educational and socioeconomic levels). Finally, future research should attempt to validate this scale in other Spanish-speaking countries and expand its use in different cultures and contexts (e.g., health, education, etc.). Furthermore, given that this instrument is a brief scale, it could be useful to incorporate it into larger psychometric studies and compare its results with those of other variables that correlate with epistemologically suspect beliefs (e.g., political leanings, adherence to misinformation) ( 20 , 38 , 39 ). References Huete-Pérez D, Morales-Vives F, Gavilán JM, Boada R, Haro J. Popular epistemically unwarranted beliefs inventory (PEUBI): A psychometric instrument for assessing paranormal, pseudoscientific and conspiracy beliefs. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2022;36(6):1260–76. Lobato E, Mendoza J, Sims V, Chin M. Examining the Relationship Between Conspiracy Theories, Paranormal Beliefs, and Pseudoscience Acceptance Among a University Population. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2014;28(5):617–25. Lobato EJC, Holbrook C. Prejudice is epistemically unwarranted belief. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2024;38(3):e4216. Gabarron E, Oyeyemi SO, Wynn R. COVID-19-related misinformation on social media: a systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2021 Jun 1;99(6):455-463A. Allington D, Duffy B, Wessely S, Dhavan N, Rubin J. Health-protective behaviour, social media usage and conspiracy belief during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Psychol Med. 2021 Jul;51(10):1763–9. Teovanović P, Lukić P, Zupan Z, Lazić A, Ninković M, Žeželj I. Irrational beliefs differentially predict adherence to guidelines and pseudoscientific practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2021;35(2):486–96. Fasce A, Picó A. Conceptual foundations and validation of the Pseudoscientific Belief Scale. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2019;33(4):617–28. Taschner NP, Orsi C, Almeida P, Pilati R. The impact of personal pseudoscientific beliefs in the pursuit for non-evidence-based health care. J Evid-Based Healthc. 2021;3:e3516–e3516. Rauf B, Perach R, Madrid-Valero JJ, Denis D, Sharpless BA, Farron H, et al. Associations between sleep variables and ostensibly paranormal experiences and paranormal beliefs: A scoping review. Br J Psychol. 2023;114(4):797–818. Williams C, Denovan A, Drinkwater K, Dagnall N. Thinking Style and Paranormal Belief: The Role of Cognitive Biases. Imagin Cogn Personal. 2022 Mar 1;41(3):274–98. Adam-Troian J, Caroti D, Arciszewski T, Ståhl T. Unfounded beliefs among teachers: The interactive role of rationality priming and cognitive ability. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2019;33(4):720–7. Bensley DA. Critical Thinking, Intelligence, and Unsubstantiated Beliefs: An Integrative Review. J Intell. 2023 Nov;11(11):207. Dyer KD, Hall RE. Effect of Critical Thinking Education on Epistemically Unwarranted Beliefs in College Students. Res High Educ. 2019 May 1;60(3):293–314. Martire KA, Robson SG, Drew M, Nicholls K, Faasse K. Thinking false and slow: Implausible beliefs and the Cognitive Reflection Test. Psychon Bull Rev. 2023 Dec 1;30(6):2387–96. McLaughlin AC, McGill AE. Explicitly Teaching Critical Thinking Skills in a History Course. Sci Educ. 2017 Mar 1;26(1):93–105. Lindeman M, Aarnio K. Paranormal beliefs: their dimensionality and correlates. Eur J Personal. 2006 Nov 1;20(7):585–602. Fasce A, Avendaño D, Adrián-Ventura J. Revised and short versions of the pseudoscientific belief scale. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2021;35(3):828–32. Douglas KM, Uscinski JE, Sutton RM, Cichocka A, Nefes T, Ang CS, et al. Understanding Conspiracy Theories. Polit Psychol. 2019;40(S1):3–35. Rizeq J, Flora DB, Toplak ME. An examination of the underlying dimensional structure of three domains of contaminated mindware: paranormal beliefs, conspiracy beliefs, and anti-science attitudes. Think Reason. 2021 Apr 3;27(2):187–211. Halpern D, Valenzuela S, Katz J, Miranda JP. From Belief in Conspiracy Theories to Trust in Others: Which Factors Influence Exposure, Believing and Sharing Fake News. In: Meiselwitz G, editor. Social Computing and Social Media Design, Human Behavior and Analytics. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 217–32. Bruder M, Haffke P, Neave N, Nouripanah N, Imhoff R. Measuring Individual Differences in Generic Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories Across Cultures: Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2013 Apr 30 [cited 2025 Mar 4];4. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225/full Salazar-Fernández C, Baeza-Rivera MJ, Manríquez-Robles D, Salinas-Oñate N, Sallam M. From Conspiracy to Hesitancy: The Longitudinal Impact of COVID-19 Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Perceived Vaccine Effectiveness. Vaccines. 2023 Jul;11(7):1150. Armstrong-Gallegos S, Van Herwegen J, Ipinza VF. Neuromyths about neurodevelopmental disorders in Chilean teachers. Trends Neurosci Educ. 2023 Dec 1;33:100218. Gini S, Knowland V, Thomas MSC, Van Herwegen J. Neuromyths About Neurodevelopmental Disorders: Misconceptions by Educators and the General Public. Mind Brain Educ. 2021;15(4):289–98. Frederick S. Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making. J Econ Perspect. 2005 Dec;19(4):25–42. Thomson KS, Oppenheimer DM. Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgm Decis Mak. 2016 Jan;11(1):99–113. Asparouhov T, Muthén B. Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2009 Jul 14;16(3):397–438. DiStefano C, Morgan G. A Comparison of Diagonal Weighted Least Squares Robust Estimation Techniques for Ordinal Data. 2014 [cited 2025 Mar 4];21(3). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915373 Li CH. Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behav Res Methods. 2016 Sep 1;48(3):936–49. Viladrich C, Angulo-Brunet A, Doval E. Un viaje alrededor de alfa y omega para estimar la fiabilidad de consistencia interna. An Psicol Ann Psychol. 2017 Jul 21;33(3):755–82. Chen FF. Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2007 Jul 31;14(3):464–504. Hair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R. Multivariate data analysis. 8th ed. Hampshire, UK: Cengage Learning; The Jamovi Project. Jamovi [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.jamovi.org/ Muthén L, Muthén B. Mplus User’s Guide. 8th ed. Los angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; Cho E, Kim S. Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha: Well Known but Poorly Understood. Organ Res Methods. 2015 Apr 1;18(2):207–30. Ballová Mikušková E, Čavojová V. The Effect of Analytic Cognitive Style on Credulity. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2020 Oct 15 [cited 2025 Mar 4];11. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.584424/full Ståhl T, van Prooijen JW. Epistemic rationality: Skepticism toward unfounded beliefs requires sufficient cognitive ability and motivation to be rational. Personal Individ Differ. 2018 Feb 1;122:155–63. Castillo-Riquelme V, Hermosilla-Urrea P, Poblete-Tiznado JP, Durán-Anabalón C, Castillo-Riquelme V, Hermosilla-Urrea P, et al. Noticias falsas y creencias infundadas en la era de la posverdad. Univ-XXI Rev Cienc Soc Humanas. 2021 Aug;(34):87–108. Sutton RM, Douglas KM. Conspiracy theories and the conspiracy mindset: implications for political ideology. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2020 Aug 1;34:118–22. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files Supportinginformation.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6227082","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":428903340,"identity":"dd9f30fa-bc64-4814-a6d2-533b502c391d","order_by":0,"name":"Rodrigo Ferrer-Urbina","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5407-3158","institution":"Universidad de Tarapacá","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rodrigo","middleName":"","lastName":"Ferrer-Urbina","suffix":""},{"id":428903341,"identity":"6f609eb5-dfb1-40dd-898a-c14dd32c0b3f","order_by":1,"name":"Herman Elgueta","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6764-5490","institution":"Universidad de Magallanes","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Herman","middleName":"","lastName":"Elgueta","suffix":""},{"id":428903342,"identity":"3ba9d04a-9aab-4799-8744-6f729ab75f0c","order_by":2,"name":"Marcos Carmona-Halty","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4475-1175","institution":"Universidad de Tarapacá","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marcos","middleName":"","lastName":"Carmona-Halty","suffix":""},{"id":428903343,"identity":"28412b57-6648-440f-b6d4-10f286ef2a1b","order_by":3,"name":"Geraldy Sepúlveda-Páez","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4693-7937","institution":"Universidad Complutense de Madrid","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Geraldy","middleName":"","lastName":"Sepúlveda-Páez","suffix":""},{"id":428903344,"identity":"31431311-97b6-42d3-9d05-20a8e87bcb8a","order_by":4,"name":"Karina Alarcón-Castillo","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0001-6881","institution":"Universidad de Tarapacá","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Karina","middleName":"","lastName":"Alarcón-Castillo","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-03-14 14:08:22","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6227082/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6227082/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":78717922,"identity":"fd3f179a-112b-4c67-bb6c-4fb9d01c2118","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-18 03:39:26","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":76643,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBifactor model, graphical representation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6227082/v1/99ac58d349ea357c24b460fe.jpeg"},{"id":78717925,"identity":"f185cffb-1be1-4c97-a821-beee8ec611f5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-18 03:39:27","extension":"jpeg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":137703,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSet-ESEM model, graphical representation of the relationships between Cognitive Reflection Test and EUBS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6227082/v1/efd6787980e69bf94a41a272.jpeg"},{"id":78718786,"identity":"bc53558d-5e5d-4be5-8049-61806e0220d0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-18 03:55:31","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":901014,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6227082/v1/78b42357-d933-48ce-a432-f956d167598a.pdf"},{"id":78717924,"identity":"09e6d5be-fc3e-47ac-9ae4-cc5e2288a64a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-18 03:39:26","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":18317,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supportinginformation.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6227082/v1/0e458581ef1cad611d773e52.docx"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eEpistemically Unwarranted Beliefs Scale, development and evidence of validity in the Chilean population.\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eBelief in ghosts, in magnetotherapy or in great conspiracies for the total domination of humanity are beliefs that, despite being far from modern rationality, are widely accepted by a significant part of the population. This type of beliefs are known as epistemically unwarranted beliefs (EUB; or epistemically suspect beliefs), defined, in general terms, as those beliefs that lack empirical support so far (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). In other words, these beliefs do not consider the totality of evidence and knowledge available to those seeking to understand reality at any given time. Although many of these beliefs have been in the humanity since ancient times, however the massification of the communication medias, particularly with the proliferation of social networks, has greatly increased their speed of propagation and reach (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough some of these beliefs may be innocuous, several negative effects of adhering to them have been evidenced. For example, conspiracy beliefs were negatively related to health protective behavior (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) and enhanced pseudoscientific practices as a form of treatment for covid-19 virus (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). Pseudoscientific beliefs were negatively related to scientific literacy (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e) and to endorsement of alternative medicine medical treatments (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). Paranormal beliefs were positively related to sleep variables (i.e., sleep paralysis, lucid dreaming, hypnagogic hallucinations) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e) and to cognitive biases (i.e., jumping to conclusions, catastrophizing, dichotomous thinking) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, it has been shown that, in aggregate, EUBs are negatively related to cognitive ability (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e), and cognitive reflection (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e). Specifically, interventions aimed at developing cognitive reflection have been shown to cause a decrease in EUB (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR14\" citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEpistemically unwarranted beliefs are differentiated by domains, being commonly referenced (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e): 1) paranormal beliefs, such as beliefs about physical, biological or psychological phenomena with fundamental characteristics that do not correspond with their ontology (e.g., premonitory thoughts) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e); 2) pseudoscientific beliefs, such as beliefs in pseudo-theories, i.e., statements that lack scientific evidence, or deny that which has been scientifically proven (e.g., homeopathy) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e); and 3) conspiracy beliefs, which point to theories about the existence of secret plots that explain social circumstances (e.g., explanations about the attack on the twin towers) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e). Despite this differentiation by domains, the available evidence shows a strong relationship between them, so that if, for example, a person believes in conspiracy theories, he or she is likely to adhere to paranormal and pseudoscientific beliefs, and vice versa (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e), which makes sense to consider them globally.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough the evidence supports the cooccurrence of EUBs, the measurement instruments that approach them tend to focus on a specific domain, with the exception of the scales proposed by Lobato et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), Dyer y Hall (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e) and Huete-P\u0026eacute;rez et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Lobato et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) formulated the first multidimensional scale of epistemically unwarranted beliefs, which integrates pseudoscientific, paranormal and conspiracy beliefs. This questionnaire was developed based on existing questionnaires. Although it provided evidence of the interrelationship between these beliefs, the proposal did not present robust psychometric evidence, except for some reliability estimates. Subsequently, Dyer and Hall (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e) developed the Inventory of Epistemically Unwarranted Beliefs (IEUB), which consists of 5 dimensions (paranormal, religion, health, extraordinary life forms, conspiracy theories and ghosts), but did not provide evidence of scale reliability and/or validity. Finally, Huete-P\u0026eacute;rez et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), developed the Popular epistemically unwarranted belief inventory (PEUBI), with the intention of measuring epistemically unwarranted beliefs in Spain, based on 5 dimensions that emerged from an exploratory factor analysis (superstitions, occultism and pseudoscience, traditional religion, extraordinary life forms and conspiracy theories), which, although it reported robust evidence of validity, the authors emphasize the idiosyncratic nature of the scale.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Chile, although there are no instruments with evidence of validity that evaluate the EUB, there are several studies that have considered how this type of beliefs affects the Chilean population, showing the relevance of this construct for the local context. For example, Castillo-Riquelme et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e), using Epstein's subscales of magical thinking, naive optimism and esoteric thinking (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e), showed that paranormal beliefs are positively related to the credibility of fake news. Halpern et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e) used the Conspiracy Mentality scale based on the Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire (CMQ; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e)) and found that conspiracy beliefs explain susceptibility to disinformation. Salazar-Fernandez et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e) developed the validation of a scale on conspiracy beliefs regarding the covid-19 vaccine (CBS Scale), demonstrating that conspiracy beliefs predict beliefs about the effectiveness of covid-19 vaccines. Finally, Armstrong-Gallegos et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e) used the survey conducted by Gini et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e) that includes questions on general and neurodevelopmental neuromyths (i.e., pseudoscientific beliefs). It should be noted that, within the EUB research in Chile, there is ample literature on conspiracy beliefs compared to paranormal and pseudoscientific beliefs, the latter being the ones with the least scientific research to date.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this scenario, where the relevance of studying the EUB is evident, the purpose of this work is to enrich the availability of tools for their study, inspired by the original proposal of Lobato et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), because it is the most widely used in the literature, with the distinguishing of: 1) offer evidence of validity, according to the state of the art of psychometrics, for the interpretation of the scores in the local context; 2) have a wider context for use it, because the adapted content transcend local\u0026acute;s idiosyncrasy; and 3) provide a short scale for be included easily in all kind of studies. Therefore, the present study aims to develop a brief scale, for its easy integration in batteries of studies, to evaluate the EUB in the Chilean population or equivalent.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 634 adults participated in the present study, of whom 30.1% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;191) reported living in Arica, 27.9% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;177) reported living in Santiago, 14.8% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;94) reported living in Antofagasta, 14.6% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;93) reported living in Talca and 12.6% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;80) reported living in Punta Arenas. The mean age was 21.9 years (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.46), among whom 57.2% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;363) identified as female, 39.4% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;250) as male and 3.4% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;22) as non-binary or other; 93.9% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;596) were university students; 46. 8% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;289) considered themselves Catholic, Christian or other religion and 53.2% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;329) declared themselves as agnostic, atheist or no religion; 49.6% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;289) self-identified politically with the left, 8.2% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;48) with the center, 15.6% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;91) with the right and 26.6% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;155) as apolitical.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProcedure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInitially, a translation and back-translation of the 37 items proposed by the Lobato et al. scale (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) was carried out. From this translated version, a content analysis was performed by 3 expert judges from the Universidad de Magallanes, who established 5 exclusion criteria: 1) items focused on events that can be considered culturally specific (e.g., President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, who acted alone); 2) items that may be age-limited (e.g., The musician Elvis Presley is dead); 3) items that allude to religious aspects (e.g., Human beings have souls that continue to exist after the body dies); 4) items that allude to judgments related to hate ideology (e.g., A person chooses to be homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual) and 5) in the pseudoscience dimension, it was decided to discard the inverse items, since it was considered that having scientific beliefs is not necessarily the inverse of having pseudoscientific beliefs (e.g., The beginning of the universe is best explained by the Big Bang Theory). Additionally, some items were adapted in their wording to offer greater clarity to the target population. Due to the fact that the conspiracy and pseudoscience dimensions were underrepresented, 2 items were created and incorporated for the conspiracy dimension (i.e. \u0026ldquo;There are secret groups of powerful people who make the most important decisions about how the world is managed at the international level\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;There are treatments that are effective for treating cancer but are hidden for economic purposes\u0026rdquo;) and 1 item for the pseudoscience dimension (i.e. \u0026ldquo;It is necessary for an ordinary person to perform detoxification diets on a daily basis\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThen, the pilot 22-item scale was applied. The item analyses allowed detecting items with low variability and/or low homogeneity indexes, from which it was decided to discard 9 items from the paranormal dimension (e.g., Creatures popularly known as Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and/or the Chupacabra exist) and 1 item from the pseudoscience dimension (i.e., Childhood vaccines are one causal factor in the development of autism).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, the final version applied and analyzed in the present study consisted of 12 items, homogeneously distributed in the 3 dimensions proposed by Lobato et al (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eData collection was carried out between August and December 2023. Five surveyors were trained (one for each city in Chile where data were collected) who assisted the researcher during data collection. A diffusion process was carried out, through posters, to motivate participation in the study. Those who signed up to participate were provided with an informed consent form detailing the objective of the research and the confidentiality and anonymity of their participation. The response procedure lasted approximately 25 minutes and participants received an economic incentive upon completion of their participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Scientific Ethics Committee of the Universidad de Tarapac\u0026aacute; granted ethical approval to this research, framed in the regular FONDECYT project n\u0026deg;1220664.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eInstruments\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEpistemically unwarranted beliefs scale (EUBS) was developed to assess people's adherence to this type of beliefs. The final version of the questionnaire consists of three dimensions: pseudoscientific beliefs (e.g., Most humans only use about 10% of their brain), conspiracy beliefs (e.g., There are secret groups of powerful people who make the most important decisions about how the world is run on an international level) and paranormal beliefs (i.e., Astrology provides valuable information about how people are), with 4 items each, 12 items in total. The response options have a five-point Likert format (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree; 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree), where higher scores translate as more adherence to the EUB.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCognitive reflection test (CRT), version developed and extended from the original test proposed by Frederick (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e) and the CRT-2 developed by Thomson and Oppenheimer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e). This test evaluates cognitive reflection, i.e., the ability of individuals to suppress automatic responses that seem obvious to find the correct answer. It consists of 7 items (e.g., A sheep farmer had 15 sheep. Except for 8, all of them died. How many live sheep did he have left?), extracted from both versions and adapted to the local and cultural context of our target population. The adaptation considered factors such as the use of local currency, the substitution of unfamiliar cultural references for more recognizable ones, and the adaptation of names and situations to make them more natural and closer to the target population.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAnalysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, descriptive statistics, normality tests, corrected homogeneity index and reliability were analyzed. Then, in order to establish evidence of validity of the internal structure of EUBS, an Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM) with TARGET rotation (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e) was used and the weighted least squares estimation method (WLSMV) was performed to establish evidence of validity from the internal structure of the test. This estimation method is robust for non-normal discrete variables (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e). The reliability of each dimension was estimated using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega coefficients (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e). Then, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used using WLSMV as the extraction method, considering categorical variables (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e) to test two configurations of the factor structure (unifactor model and bifactor model). Subsequently, to identify whether it is possible to interpret the scores in an equivalent way between people of different genders, an invariance analysis was performed between the majority groups (i.e., men and women), based on the CFA model restrictyions (i.e., metric and scalar), considering decreases in the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of less than 0.010 as evidence of invariance (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, to obtain evidence of validity based on the relationship with other variables, a structural equation model was performed, starting from the polychoric correlations and using TARGET rotation and the WLSMV extraction method, using CRT as the independent variable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe considered several common goodness-of-fit indices to evaluate the model fit: Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), CFI, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and their respective 90% Confidence Interval (90% CI). In the case of CFI and TLI, values\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;0.95 are interpreted to reflect adequate fit, and in the case of RMSEA, values of \u0026le;\u0026thinsp;.070 are indicative of adequate fit (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e). In particular, descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and homogeneity index were obtained using Jamovi v2.0.0 software (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e), whereas ESEM and CFA analyses were performed using Mplus v8.2 (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEvidence of validity based on internal structure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe 12-item ESEM of the EUBS (M1) showed fit indexes aligned with the recommendations of the literature (32) (see Table 1), however, there are cross-loadings, items with low factor loadings according to the factor to which it theoretically corresponds (i.e., PS4 and CO4) and one item that overrepresents one of the factors (i.e., PA4) (see Table 2). Because of this, a second model is tested with 9 items of the EUBS (M2). The ESEM of the second model shows greater clarity of the scale factors and low cross-loadings, compared to M1. In addition, it shows satisfactory fit indexes (32) (see Table 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eESEM and CFA fit indices for EUBS\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026chi;2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e/\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;df\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRMSEA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90% CI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCFI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTLI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSRMR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e74.746*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.045\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[.031, .058]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.992\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.984\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.801*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.150\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.043\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[.019, .065]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.996\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.988\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.014\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e188.973*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.999\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.097\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[.084, .111]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.954\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.938\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.042\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96.694*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.372\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.083\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[.067, .100]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.978\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.955\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.029\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: *p\u0026lt;.001; M1 = ESEM 12 items; M2 = ESEM 9 items; M3 = Unifactorial model; M4 = Bifactor model; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; 90% CI = Confidence Interval; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eDescriptive statistics and item-level factor loadings of M1 and M2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFactor loadings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eK\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSW\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePS1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.53 (0.96)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.024\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.868\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.549\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.116\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.079\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.769\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.158\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.047\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePS2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.59 (1.48)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.300\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.840\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.481\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.127\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.104\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.396\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.065\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.221\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePS3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.17 (1.03)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.125\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.858\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.685\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.118\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.550\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.237\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePS4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.64 (1.19)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.206\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.905\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.301\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.283\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.056\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCO1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.43 (1.11)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.526\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.892\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.049\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.737\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.126\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.813\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.092\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCO2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.97 (1.30)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.056\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.905\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.204\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.615\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.058\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.160\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.507\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.191\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCO3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.31 (0.99)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.241\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.893\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.090\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.452\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.237\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.077\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.427\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.252\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCO4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.47 (1.20)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.357\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.886\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.304\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.290\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.174\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePA1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.24 (1.19)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.510\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.854\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.352\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.179\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.617\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.312\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.148\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.600\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePA2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.60 (1.32)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.225\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.882\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.102\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.221\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.535\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.007\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.177\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.660\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePA3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.31 (1.22)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.328\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.904\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.060\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.350\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.419\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.059\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.317\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.423\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePA4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.76 (1.34)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.070\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.889\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.200\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.079\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.999\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.513\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.473\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.623\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.626\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.706\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.629\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: \u0026nbsp;*p\u0026lt;.001; M1 = ESEM 12 items; M2 = ESEM 9 items; M = media; SD = Standard deviation; S = Asymmetry; K = Kurtosis; SW = Shapiro-Wilk test; PS = Pseudoscience; CO = Conspiracy; PA = Paranormal.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThen, using the 9-item version, two models are tested, one that assumes a latent factor underlying all items of the scale (i.e., unidimensional factor) (M3) and another one that proposes a bifactor model (M4), i.e., a structure of 1 global factor (i.e., epistemically unwarranted beliefs) and 3 specific factors (i.e., pseudoscientific, conspiracy and paranormal beliefs). According to the criteria of Hair et al.. (32), M4 fits better than M3 for the 9-item model. Figure 1 shows the factorial loadings of M4.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, the reduced 9-item epistemically unwarranted beliefs scale provided adequate internal consistency both for the overall score (\u003cem\u003e\u0026omega;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 0,833; \u003cem\u003e\u0026alpha;\u003c/em\u003e = 0,837) and for each of its dimensions: pseudoscience beliefs (\u003cem\u003e\u0026omega;\u003c/em\u003e = 0,696; \u003cem\u003e\u0026alpha;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 0,704), conspiracy beliefs (\u003cem\u003e\u0026omega;\u003c/em\u003e = 0,696; \u003cem\u003e\u0026alpha;\u003c/em\u003e = 0,704) and paranormal beliefs (\u003cem\u003e\u0026omega;\u003c/em\u003e = 0,680; \u003cem\u003e\u0026alpha;\u003c/em\u003e = 0,691) (35).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFactor invariance according to gender\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCFI differentials showed no decrease in fit greater than .010 in the metric and scalar models compared with the configural model (see Table 3) (31). This suggests equivalence in factor loadings and factor intercepts between those who identified as female and male, indicating that the 9 EUBS items have consistent meaning across both groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 3\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eFit indexes for multi-group CFA of the EUBS by gender\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026chi;2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e/\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;df\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRMSEA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90% CI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCFI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTLI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSRMR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCMs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026Delta;CFI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e149.507*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.114\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.083\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[.068, .098]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.857\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.786\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.055\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e154.760*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.866\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.078\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[.064, .093]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.858\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.811\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.058\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM6-M5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e164.431*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.741\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.075\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[.062, .089]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.853\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.824\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.059\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM7-M6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: \u0026nbsp;*p\u0026lt;.001; M5 = Configural invariance; M6 = Metric invariance; M6 = Scalar invariance; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; 90% CI = Confidence Interval; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; CMs = Comparisons between models; \u0026Delta;CFI = CFI differential.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEvidence of validity based on the relationship with other variables\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe impact of cognitive reflection test on the 9-item version of the EUBS was assessed using a Set-ESEM model (see Figure 2). This model demonstrated satisfactory fit indicators (32): \u0026chi;2(86) = 105.646; CFI = .995; TLI = .993; and RMSEA = .019 (confidence interval: .000 - .030), showing that it is an adequate representation of the observed relationships. According to the standardized effects, the 3 direct effects were statistically significant, showing a strong inverse effect (\u003cem\u003e\u0026gamma;\u003c/em\u003e = -.303, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001 for pseudoscientific beliefs; \u003cem\u003e\u0026gamma;\u003c/em\u003e = -.177, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001 for conspiracy beliefs; and \u003cem\u003e\u0026gamma;\u003c/em\u003e = -.545, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001 for paranormal beliefs).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe main aim of this study was to develop a brief scale that measures epistemologically unwarranted beliefs in an adult population. The Epistemically Unwarranted Beliefs Scale (EUBS) (see appendix 1) presented a stable structure composed of three factors and nine items with acceptable levels of internal consistency. In this line, the fit of the final model, the magnitude of the factor loadings and the cross-loadings corroborate the three-dimensional structure of the model. In addition, the estimates of the reliability coefficients, for each dimension and for the overall scale, show a satisfactory level of consistency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe nine-item model also shows compatibility with a bifactor structure, i.e., it has a global factor, in this case, epistemologically unwarranted beliefs, and three specific factors that has some independence with the general factor, in this case the three beliefs studied (i.e., pseudoscientific, paranormal and conspiracy beliefs). Therefore, it is plausible to use the scale using its three specific and one general dimensions. These findings provide evidence for the structure of three related factors, i.e., pseudoscientific beliefs, paranormal beliefs, and conspiracy beliefs, in line with previous findings (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, the nine-item model shown metric and scalar invariance of measurement between genders (i.e., women and men). This means that factor loadings and variability of dimensions were equivalent between women and men. This provides the opportunity to investigate adherence to epistemically unwarranted beliefs without distinction in the score interpretation between men and women.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding validity evidence based on the relationship with other variables, CRT was found to correlate negatively with the EUBS dimensions, aligning with the theoretically expected direction and corroborating previous studies (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e). In other words, people with epistemically unwarranted beliefs present lower capacity for cognitive reflection, understood as the ability to inhibit intuitive responses and reach the correct solution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsidering the significant impact of the EUB on people's health behaviors (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e), the incorporation of this scale in health or education settings could be beneficial. The information provided by this scale could help to identify persons more likely to adhere to these beliefs, and to implement interventions to help mitigate the adverse effects of believing in paranormal, conspiracy, and pseudoscientific theories. For example, Dyer and Hall (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e), in a university population, conducted a critical thinking intervention that significantly reduced pseudoscientific beliefs. In addition, its application in social psychology, public safety and media would allow understanding how EUBs influence institutional distrust, risk perception and the dissemination of misinformation. This would facilitate the design of strategies to promote critical thinking and strengthen citizen trust.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe main limitations of this study refer to the representativeness of the sample. On the one hand, the participants in our study were recruited through a non-probabilistic sample, which could affect the accuracy of representativeness, however, it should be considered that the participants belong to five different regions of Chile, covering different geographical areas (i.e., north, center and south). On the other hand, most of the participants were university students, which could bias our results to a population with specific characteristics. Consequently, it is recommended that future psychometric studies using this instrument be extended to different age groups (e.g., adolescents, older adults) with different sociodemographic variables (e.g., educational and socioeconomic levels).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, future research should attempt to validate this scale in other Spanish-speaking countries and expand its use in different cultures and contexts (e.g., health, education, etc.). Furthermore, given that this instrument is a brief scale, it could be useful to incorporate it into larger psychometric studies and compare its results with those of other variables that correlate with epistemologically suspect beliefs (e.g., political leanings, adherence to misinformation) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHuete-P\u0026eacute;rez D, Morales-Vives F, Gavil\u0026aacute;n JM, Boada R, Haro J. Popular epistemically unwarranted beliefs inventory (PEUBI): A psychometric instrument for assessing paranormal, pseudoscientific and conspiracy beliefs. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2022;36(6):1260\u0026ndash;76.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLobato E, Mendoza J, Sims V, Chin M. Examining the Relationship Between Conspiracy Theories, Paranormal Beliefs, and Pseudoscience Acceptance Among a University Population. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2014;28(5):617\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLobato EJC, Holbrook C. Prejudice is epistemically unwarranted belief. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2024;38(3):e4216.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGabarron E, Oyeyemi SO, Wynn R. COVID-19-related misinformation on social media: a systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2021 Jun 1;99(6):455-463A.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAllington D, Duffy B, Wessely S, Dhavan N, Rubin J. Health-protective behaviour, social media usage and conspiracy belief during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Psychol Med. 2021 Jul;51(10):1763\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTeovanović P, Lukić P, Zupan Z, Lazić A, Ninković M, Žeželj I. Irrational beliefs differentially predict adherence to guidelines and pseudoscientific practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2021;35(2):486\u0026ndash;96.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFasce A, Pic\u0026oacute; A. Conceptual foundations and validation of the Pseudoscientific Belief Scale. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2019;33(4):617\u0026ndash;28.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaschner NP, Orsi C, Almeida P, Pilati R. The impact of personal pseudoscientific beliefs in the pursuit for non-evidence-based health care. J Evid-Based Healthc. 2021;3:e3516\u0026ndash;e3516.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRauf B, Perach R, Madrid-Valero JJ, Denis D, Sharpless BA, Farron H, et al. Associations between sleep variables and ostensibly paranormal experiences and paranormal beliefs: A scoping review. Br J Psychol. 2023;114(4):797\u0026ndash;818.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams C, Denovan A, Drinkwater K, Dagnall N. Thinking Style and Paranormal Belief: The Role of Cognitive Biases. Imagin Cogn Personal. 2022 Mar 1;41(3):274\u0026ndash;98.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdam-Troian J, Caroti D, Arciszewski T, St\u0026aring;hl T. Unfounded beliefs among teachers: The interactive role of rationality priming and cognitive ability. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2019;33(4):720\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBensley DA. Critical Thinking, Intelligence, and Unsubstantiated Beliefs: An Integrative Review. J Intell. 2023 Nov;11(11):207.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDyer KD, Hall RE. Effect of Critical Thinking Education on Epistemically Unwarranted Beliefs in College Students. Res High Educ. 2019 May 1;60(3):293\u0026ndash;314.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartire KA, Robson SG, Drew M, Nicholls K, Faasse K. Thinking false and slow: Implausible beliefs and the Cognitive Reflection Test. Psychon Bull Rev. 2023 Dec 1;30(6):2387\u0026ndash;96.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcLaughlin AC, McGill AE. Explicitly Teaching Critical Thinking Skills in a History Course. Sci Educ. 2017 Mar 1;26(1):93\u0026ndash;105.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLindeman M, Aarnio K. Paranormal beliefs: their dimensionality and correlates. Eur J Personal. 2006 Nov 1;20(7):585\u0026ndash;602.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFasce A, Avenda\u0026ntilde;o D, Adri\u0026aacute;n-Ventura J. Revised and short versions of the pseudoscientific belief scale. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2021;35(3):828\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDouglas KM, Uscinski JE, Sutton RM, Cichocka A, Nefes T, Ang CS, et al. Understanding Conspiracy Theories. Polit Psychol. 2019;40(S1):3\u0026ndash;35.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRizeq J, Flora DB, Toplak ME. An examination of the underlying dimensional structure of three domains of contaminated mindware: paranormal beliefs, conspiracy beliefs, and anti-science attitudes. Think Reason. 2021 Apr 3;27(2):187\u0026ndash;211.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHalpern D, Valenzuela S, Katz J, Miranda JP. From Belief in Conspiracy Theories to Trust in Others: Which Factors Influence Exposure, Believing and Sharing Fake News. In: Meiselwitz G, editor. Social Computing and Social Media Design, Human Behavior and Analytics. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 217\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBruder M, Haffke P, Neave N, Nouripanah N, Imhoff R. Measuring Individual Differences in Generic Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories Across Cultures: Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2013 Apr 30 [cited 2025 Mar 4];4. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225/full\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalazar-Fern\u0026aacute;ndez C, Baeza-Rivera MJ, Manr\u0026iacute;quez-Robles D, Salinas-O\u0026ntilde;ate N, Sallam M. From Conspiracy to Hesitancy: The Longitudinal Impact of COVID-19 Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Perceived Vaccine Effectiveness. Vaccines. 2023 Jul;11(7):1150.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArmstrong-Gallegos S, Van Herwegen J, Ipinza VF. Neuromyths about neurodevelopmental disorders in Chilean teachers. Trends Neurosci Educ. 2023 Dec 1;33:100218.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGini S, Knowland V, Thomas MSC, Van Herwegen J. Neuromyths About Neurodevelopmental Disorders: Misconceptions by Educators and the General Public. Mind Brain Educ. 2021;15(4):289\u0026ndash;98.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrederick S. Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making. J Econ Perspect. 2005 Dec;19(4):25\u0026ndash;42.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThomson KS, Oppenheimer DM. Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgm Decis Mak. 2016 Jan;11(1):99\u0026ndash;113.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAsparouhov T, Muth\u0026eacute;n B. Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2009 Jul 14;16(3):397\u0026ndash;438.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDiStefano C, Morgan G. A Comparison of Diagonal Weighted Least Squares Robust Estimation Techniques for Ordinal Data. 2014 [cited 2025 Mar 4];21(3). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915373\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi CH. Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behav Res Methods. 2016 Sep 1;48(3):936\u0026ndash;49. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eViladrich C, Angulo-Brunet A, Doval E. Un viaje alrededor de alfa y omega para estimar la fiabilidad de consistencia interna. An Psicol Ann Psychol. 2017 Jul 21;33(3):755\u0026ndash;82.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen FF. Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2007 Jul 31;14(3):464\u0026ndash;504.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R. Multivariate data analysis. 8th ed. Hampshire, UK: Cengage Learning;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Jamovi Project. Jamovi [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.jamovi.org/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMuth\u0026eacute;n L, Muth\u0026eacute;n B. Mplus User\u0026rsquo;s Guide. 8th ed. Los angeles, CA: Muth\u0026eacute;n \u0026amp; Muth\u0026eacute;n; \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCho E, Kim S. Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Coefficient Alpha: Well Known but Poorly Understood. Organ Res Methods. 2015 Apr 1;18(2):207\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBallov\u0026aacute; Miku\u0026scaron;kov\u0026aacute; E, Čavojov\u0026aacute; V. The Effect of Analytic Cognitive Style on Credulity. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2020 Oct 15 [cited 2025 Mar 4];11. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.584424/full\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSt\u0026aring;hl T, van Prooijen JW. Epistemic rationality: Skepticism toward unfounded beliefs requires sufficient cognitive ability and motivation to be rational. Personal Individ Differ. 2018 Feb 1;122:155\u0026ndash;63. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCastillo-Riquelme V, Hermosilla-Urrea P, Poblete-Tiznado JP, Dur\u0026aacute;n-Anabal\u0026oacute;n C, Castillo-Riquelme V, Hermosilla-Urrea P, et al. Noticias falsas y creencias infundadas en la era de la posverdad. Univ-XXI Rev Cienc Soc Humanas. 2021 Aug;(34):87\u0026ndash;108.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSutton RM, Douglas KM. Conspiracy theories and the conspiracy mindset: implications for political ideology. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2020 Aug 1;34:118\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[{"identity":"a7d2f844-d3d0-4543-83c8-9a9927033d54","identifier":"10.13039/501100002850","name":"Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico","awardNumber":"1220664","order_by":0}],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"University of Tarapacá","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Epistemically unwarranted beliefs, Measurement, Scale development, gender invariance","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6227082/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6227082/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe study of epistemically unwarranted beliefs (EUB) (i.e., paranormal, pseudoscientific and conspiracy beliefs) has become relevant due to the negative effects they have produced on people's health, as evidenced in the covid-19 pandemic. However, there is no instrument with appropriate and updated validity evidence for its evaluation in Latin American people. Because of this, the present study aims to develop a brief scale to analyze general epistemically unwarranted beliefs that do not depend on local factors. A total of 634 adults from five Chilean cities participated in the study. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the final structure of the Epistemically Unwarranted Beliefs Scale (EUBS) considers 9 items with three related factors. In addition, results showed good internal consistency (CFI \u0026gt; .95; TLI \u0026gt; .95; RMSEA \u0026lt; .07), gender invariance, and evidence of validity based on the inverse relation with the cognitive reflection test. Finally, implications for the theoretical construct and possible limitations of the scale are discussed.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Epistemically Unwarranted Beliefs Scale, development and evidence of validity in the Chilean population.","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-03-18 03:39:22","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6227082/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"dd2a877e-2fdc-4645-8c15-5f6ef3f9d609","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 18th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":45695646,"name":"Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-03-18T03:39:22+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-03-18 03:39:22","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6227082","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6227082","identity":"rs-6227082","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}