Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40177782›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of psychology2025

Pro-Science Beliefs: The Role of Analytic Thinking and Epistemic Values.

Sinem Yilmaz, Tomas Ståhl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sinem YilmazDepartment of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7111-0990
Tomas StåhlDepartment of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present research examined whether analytic thinking and valuing rationality predict pro-science beliefs and skepticism toward alternative medicine. We hypothesized that analytic thinking would be more strongly positively associated with pro-science beliefs and skepticism toward alternative medicine among people who strongly (vs. weakly) value being rational. In two studies, participants (N

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeScienceThinkingAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adultanalytic thinkingimportance of rationalityscience beliefsskepticism toward alternative medicine

Identifiers

PMID40177782
PMCPMC12423745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.