References
- 1Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235. DOI: 10.1177/1088868309341564
- 2Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Zemla, J. C. (2010). Missing the trees for the forest: a construal level account of the illusion of explanatory depth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 436–451. DOI: 10.1037/a0020218
- 3Baron, J., Scott, S., Fincher, K., & Metz, S. E. (2015). Why does the Cognitive Reflection Test (sometimes) predict utilitarian moral judgment (and other things)? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(3), 265–284. DOI: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.09.003
- 4Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1207–1212. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x
- 5Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116
- 6Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Feng Kao, C. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307. DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13
- 7de Solla Price, D. (1974). Gears from the Greeks. The Antikythera mechanism: a calendar computer from ca. 80 BC. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 1–70. DOI: 10.2307/1006146
- 8Edmunds, M. G., & Morgan, P. (2000). The Antikythera Mechanism: still a mystery of Greek astronomy? Astronomy & geophysics, 41(6), 6–10. DOI: 10.1046/j.1468-4004.2000.41610.x
- 9Fernbach, P. M., Rogers, T., Fox, C. R., & Sloman, S. A. (2013). Political extremism is supported by an illusion of understanding. Psychological Science, 24(6), 939–946. DOI: 10.1177/0956797612464058
- 10Fernbach, P. M., Sloman, S. A., Louis, R. S., & Shube, J. N. (2013). Explanation fiends and foes: How mechanistic detail determines understanding and preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), 1115–1131. DOI: 10.1086/667782
- 11Fisher, M., Goddu, M. K., & Keil, F. C. (2015). Searching for explanations: How the Internet inflates estimates of internal knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(3), 674–688. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000070
- 12Fisher, M., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2021). Who knows what? Knowledge misattribution in the division of cognitive labor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 27(2), 292–306. DOI: 10.1037/xap0000310
- 13Freeth, T., Bitsakis, Y., Moussas, X., Seiradakis, J. H., Tselikas, A., Mangou, H., … & Edmunds, M. G. (2006). Decoding the ancient Greek astronomical calculator known as the Antikythera Mechanism. Nature, 444(7119), 587–591. DOI: 10.1038/nature05357
- 14Gaviria, C., & Corredor, J. (2021). Illusion of explanatory depth and social desirability of historical knowledge. Metacognition and Learning, 16(3), 801–832. DOI: 10.1007/s11409-021-09267-7
- 15Garner, R., Gillingham, M. G., & White, C. S. (1989). Effects of ‘seductive details’ on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction, 6(1), 41–57. DOI: 10.1207/s1532690xci0601_2
- 16Gopnik, A. (2000).
Explanation as orgasm and the drive for causal knowledge: The function, evolution, and phenomenology of the theory formation system . In F. C. Keil & R. A. Wilson (Eds.), Explanation and cognition (pp. 299–323). The MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/2930.003.0018 - 17Harp, S. F., & Maslich, A. A. (2005). The consequences of including seductive details during lecture. Teaching of Psychology, 32(2), 100–103. DOI: 10.1207/s15328023top3202_4
- 18Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 92–102. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.92
- 19Haskel-Ittah, M. (2023). Explanatory black boxes and mechanistic reasoning. Journal of research in science teaching, 60(4), 915–933. DOI: 10.1002/tea.21817
- 20Ikeda, K., Kitagami, S., Takahashi, T., Hattori, Y., & Ito, Y. (2013). Neuroscientific information bias in metacomprehension: The effect of brain images on metacomprehension judgment of neuroscience research. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 1357–1363. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0457-5
- 21Joo, S., Yousif, S. R., & Keil, F. C. (2022). Understanding “why:” how implicit questions shape explanation preferences. Cognitive Science, 46(2),
e13091 . DOI: 10.1111/cogs.13091 - 22Jordan, K., Zajac, R., Bernstein, D., Joshi, C., & Garry, M. (2022). Trivially informative semantic context inflates people’s confidence they can perform a highly complex skill. Royal Society Open Science, 9(3), 211977. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.211977
- 23Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122–149. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122
- 24Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment, 49–81. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511808098.004
- 25Keil, F. (2006). Explanation and understanding. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 227–254. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190100
- 26Keil, F. (2019). How do partial understandings work. Varieties of understanding: New perspectives from philosophy, psychology, and theology, 191–208. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190860974.003.0010
- 27Kelemen, D. (1999a). Function, goals and intention: Children’s teleological reasoning about objects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(12), 461–468. DOI: 10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01402-3
- 28Kelemen, D. (1999b). Why are rocks pointy? Children’s preference for teleological explanations of the natural world. Developmental Psychology, 35(6), 1440–1452. DOI: 10.1037//0012-1649.35.6.1440
- 29Kelemen, D. (2012).
Teleological minds: How natural intuitions about agency and purpose influence learning about evolution . In K. S. Rosengren, S. K. Brem, E. M. Evans, & G. M. Sinatra (Eds.), Evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution (pp. 66–92). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730421.003.0004 - 30Kelemen, D., & Rosset, E. (2009). The human function compunction: Teleological explanation in adults. Cognition, 111(1), 138–143. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.01.001
- 31Kelemen, D., Rottman, J., & Seston, R. (2013). Professional physical scientists display tenacious teleological tendencies: purpose-based reasoning as a cognitive default. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(4), 1074–1083. DOI: 10.1037/a0030399
- 32Kelley, C. M., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Remembering mistaken for knowing: Ease of retrieval as a basis for confidence in answers to general knowledge questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(1), 1–24. DOI: 10.1006/jmla.1993.1001
- 33Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349
- 34Lawson, R. (2006). The science of cycology: Failures to understand how everyday objects work. Memory & Cognition, 34(8), 1667–1675. DOI: 10.3758/BF03195929
- 35Lombrozo, T., & Wilkenfeld, D. (2019). Mechanistic versus functional understanding. Varieties of Understanding: New Perspectives from Philosophy, Psychology, and Theology, 209–229. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190860974.003.0011
- 36McCarthy, A. M., & Keil, F. C. (2023). A right way to explain? function, mechanism, and the order of explanations. Cognition, 238, 105494. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105494
- 37Nickerson, R. S., & Adams, J. J. (1979). Long-term memory for a common object. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 287–307. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(79)90013-6
- 38Rozenblit, L., & Keil, F. (2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science, 26(5), 521–562. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1
- 39Rhodes, R. E., Rodriguez, F., & Shah, P. (2014). Explaining the alluring influence of neuroscience information on scientific reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(5), 1432–1440. DOI: 10.1037/a0036844
- 40Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2006). An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 34, 344–355. DOI: 10.3758/BF03193412
- 41Sloman, S. A., & Rabb, N. (2016). Your understanding is my understanding: Evidence for a community of knowledge. Psychological Science, 27(11), 1451–1460. DOI: 10.1177/0956797616662271
- 42Vasilyeva, N., Wilkenfeld, D., & Lombrozo, T. (2017). Contextual utility affects the perceived quality of explanations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 1436–1450. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-017-1275-y
- 43Walters, D. J., Fernbach, P. M., Fox, C. R., & Sloman, S. A. (2017). Known unknowns: A critical determinant of confidence and calibration. Management Science, 63(12), 4298–4307. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2016.2580
- 44Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(3), 470–477. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2008.20040
- 45Zemla, J. C., Steiner, S. M., & Sloman, S. (2016). Analytical thinking predicts less teleological reasoning and religious belief. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1217–1222). Austin, TX:
Cognitive Science Society .