What are they afraid of? Cognitive predictors of risk assessment related to refugees

Abstract

In our study with a representative sample of Slovak public (N=500), we examined whether risk assessment related to refugees can be predicted with education, science literacy, cognitive reflection, open-minded thinking, and subjective and objective knowledge. Participants' estimates of how much they know were grossly overstated. Still, this subjective feeling of being knowledgeable about the crisis coupled with the participants' level of closed-mindedness, were the strongest predictors of perceived risks and fear associated with refugees. Yet, the predictive accuracy of our models substantially increased after including personal values, such as conservatism and racism, suggesting that cognitive factors alone cannot explain risk perception in this domain.

Full text

What are they afraid of? Cognitive predictors of risk assessment related to
refugees
Jana Bašnáková, Lenka Valuš
Institute of Experimental Psychology, Center of Social and Psychological Sciences SAS
Dúbravská cesta 9, 84104 Bratislava, Slovakia
jana.basnakova@gmail.com; valus.lenka@gmail.com
Abstract
In our study with a representative sample of Slovak
public (N=500), we examined whether risk assessment
related to refugees can be predicted with education,
science literacy, cognitive reflection, open-minded
thinking, and subjective and objective knowledge.
Participants’ estimates of how much they know were
grossly overstated. Still, this subjective feeling of being
knowledgeable about the crisis coupled with the
participants’ level of closed-mindedness, were the
strongest predictors of perceived risks and fear
associated with refugees. Yet, the predictive accuracy of
our models substantially increased after including
personal values, such as conservatism and racism,
suggesting that cognitive factors alone cannot explain
risk perception in this domain.
1 Introduction
During the refugee crisis in 2017, there was a marked
increase in public mistrust and fear associated with the
presence of war refugees from conflicts in Syria and
elsewhere in our country, as well as in the rest of the
EU. This was despite the fact that Slovakia was neither
a transit country, nor their preferred destination. In
order to understand these sentiments, we examined
what cognitive factors are associated with feelings of
fear and risk perceptions related to refugees.
We hypothesized that risk assessment would be
influenced by the following factors: a) how much
people know about the crisis’ sources and outcomes,
which we probed at both a subjective (”How much had
you known about the refugee crisis until today?”) and
objective level [5 multiple-choice questions about basic
facts such as what population groups are mostly
commonly fleeing their homes (women, children, or men)
or which countries have received the largest share of
refugees (those neighboring the conflict zones or Western
European countries)]; b) education; c) basic scientific
literacy, including awareness of how scientific
knowledge is generated; d) the degree to which they are
open to reassess their beliefs in light of new evidence;
and e) the tendency to react intuitively without further
cognitive reflection. Apart from cognitive predictors, we
also included items about participants’ values, such as
their degree of conservatism, support for state
interventions and racist attitudes.
2 Method
A representative sample of 500 Slovak adults (50%
women), recruited via a market research agency, aged 18
to 86 years (Mdn=39, IQR=23) took part in our online
questionnaire. Their education level was distributed as
follows: 9% elementary school, 31% vocational high
school, 40% high school with diploma, 20% university
degree.
Half of the sample answered refugees-related items first:
subjective and objective knowledge, and perceived risks
and fear (2+2 items). The other half filled in the
questionnaires first: i) the science literacy scale (SL;
Miller, 1998; 9 items), ii) the scientific reasoning scale
(SR; based on Drummond & Fischhoff, 2017; 7 items),
iii) the cognitive reflection tests (CRT; Dudeková &
Kostovičová, 2015; Sirota et al., 2018; 1-factor solution,
13 items, α=.82) iv) the actively open-minded thinking
scale (AOT; Svedholm-Häkkinen & Lindeman, 2018; 1-
factor solution, 11 items, α=.74), v) personal values scale
(Bútorová et al., 2012; European Social Survey, 2015; 3-
factor solution, racism: 4 items, α=.70; conservatism: 3
items, α=.75; state interventions: 2 items, α=.63).
3 Results
Subjective knowledge (SK; Mdn=4, IQR=1) was not
correlated with objective knowledge (OK; Mdn=1,
IQR=2), rs=.04, p=.421. Participants’ estimates of how
much they know were severely overstated - the average
participant correctly answered only 25% of the
knowledge questions, while estimating their expertise
at 70%.
However, SK was the strongest cognitive predictor of
perceived risks (PR; β=.28) and perceived fear (PF;
β=.24), with AOT being the second one (PR: β=-.15,
PF: β=-.17). Intriguingly, PR positively correlated with
SR (β=.12). The models explained 11.6% of PR
(p<.001) and 9.4% of PF (p<.001) variance.
13
Kognícia a umelý život 2019, Bratislava – Rača

After including personal values, predictive power of
our models increased. PR was predicted by racism
(β=.43), SK (β=.20), conservatism (β=.10) and SR
(β=.09), R2=.29, p<.001. PF was predicted by racism
(β=.41), SK (β=.16), AOT (β=-.13) and state
interventions (β=.08), R2=.27, p<.001.
4 Discussion
The most surprising finding was one of no correlation
between how much people objectively knew about the
crisis and how much they thought they knew. In fact,
the average participant correctly answered only one
fourth of the multiple-choice knowledge questions,
although their subjective estimate was seventy percent.
This suggests that much of what people thought they
knew were in facts inaccurate information or myths
about refugees.
Crucially, this false sense of being knowledgeable
about the refugee crisis, together with lack of open-
minded thinking, significantly predicted risk
assessment and the subjective feeling of fear associated
with refugees. A possible explanation is that this might
be the result of consistent “scare-mongering” by
various parties in Slovakia who reinforced negative
information about refugees and framed the situation as
a threat to our national sovereignty, culture and religion
(e.g., Chadwick, 2016). Coupled with dogmatic
thinking and fact resistance characteristic for people
who score low on the open-minded thinking scale, it is
likely that those who did not actively seek more
accurate information about what is going on were led to
believe that the threat associated with refugees is
indeed very high.
Intriguingly, higher risk was also positively correlated
with scientific reasoning skills. This is an unexpected
finding, as we predicted that those who have the tools
to interpret complex information - such as scientific
studies - would be able to accurately interpret
information related to the crisis and thus show lower
risk perception.
The predictive accuracy of our models substantially
increased after including a measure of personal values,
such as conservatism and racist attitudes. People who
considered refugees a risk scored substantially higher
on items which reflected racist attitudes towards the
Roma minority or ethnic minorities in general - for
example, they endorsed the view that there are genetic
differences in how much people from different ethnic
backgrounds like to work, or in their intelligence. In
addition, they also scored higher on a measure of
conservatism, taking a stand against equal rights for
homosexuals and being anti-choice on the issue of
abortion. Thus, the resulting picture is one where risk
perception cannot be explained by cognitive factors
only. Our data suggest that it is a combination of not
having accurate information about the situation, being a
dogmatic thinker and having values which are
associated with a non-egalitarian view of the world.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by VEGA grant No.
2/0085/17 – ‘Cognitive limits of effective information
processing and communication’ and by the Institute for
Strategic Analyses as a part of the project “Social
Analysis of Slovakia”.
References
Bútorová, Z., Gyárfášová, O., & Slosiarik, M. (2012).
Verejná mienka a voličské správanie. In V. Krivý
(Ed.), Slovenské voľby ’12: Čo im predchádzalo,
postoje a výsledky (pp. 137–202). Bratislava:
Sociologický ústav SAV.
Chadwick, V. (2016, May 26). Robert Fico: ‘Islam has
no place in Slovakia’. Retrieved from
https://www.politico.eu/article/robert-fico-islam-no-
place-news-slovakia-muslim-refugee/
Drummond, C., & Fischhoff, B. (2017). Development
and validation of the Scientific Reasoning Scale.
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(1), 26–
38.
Dudeková, K., & Kostovičová, L. (2015) Oscary, HDP
a CRT: Efekt ukotvenia u finančných profesionálov
v kontexte doménovej špecifickosti a kognitívnej
reflexie. In I. Farkaš, M. Takáč, J. Rybár & J.
Kelemen (Eds.), Kognícia a umelý život 2015 (pp.
50–56). Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského.
European Social Survey (2015). Round 7 module on
attitudes towards immigration and their antecedents
- question design final module in template. London:
Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, City
University London.
Miller, J. D. (1998) The measurement of civic scientific
literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7(3), 1–
21.
Sirota, M., Kostovičová, L., Juanchich, M., Dewberry,
C., & Marshall, A. C. (2018). Measuring cognitive
reflection without math: Developing and validating
Verbal Cognitive Reflection Test. Manuscript under
review.
Svedholm-Häkkinen, A., & Lindeman, M. (2018).
Actively open-minded thinking: development of a
shortened scale and disentangling attitudes towards
knowledge and people. Thinking & Reasoning,
24(1), 21–40.
14