arbiter
JournalsAccount

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

Shuguang Jiang et al.

European Economic Review2026https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2026.105267article
AJG 3ABDC A*
Weight
0.50

Abstract

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.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2026.105267

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{shuguang2026,
  title        = {{Thinking against the wind: Narratives, information, and reasoning ability}},
  author       = {Shuguang Jiang et al.},
  journal      = {European Economic Review},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2026.105267},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

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

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.