Thinking against the wind: Narratives, information, and reasoning ability

This study examines how reasoning ability is associated with individuals’ responses to authoritative narratives and related information. We conducted a two-wave survey experiment at two pivotal moments in the pandemic, comparing distinct populations exposed to contrasting narratives. In the first wave, the dominant narrative emphasized the virus’s severity and strict lockdowns; by the second wave, it shifted toward downplaying health risks and advocating for lifting lockdowns. Both waves included a randomized information intervention presenting statistics on COVID-related mortality. We find that individuals with higher reasoning ability consistently tend to “think against the wind,” challenging prevailing narratives regardless of their direction. The information intervention significantly shifted the beliefs of high reasoning ability individuals when evidence contradicted the dominant narratives but had little effect when it aligned with them. Furthermore, high reasoning ability individuals were more skeptical of competing non-authoritative narratives. Overall, these patterns highlight the important association between reasoning ability and changes in public opinion and policy support, particularly in belief updating under conflicting narratives.