Abstract

This project examines how rationalization functions as an epistemically and instrumentally responsible skill, focusing on how time constraints and individual differences in intellectual humility shape people’s reasoning. In this project, rationalization is defined as not merely a post-hoc, cognitive bias but as a neutral, narrative process that can either track the causal story behind judgments or depart in self-serving ways, depending on how instrumental and epistemic reasons are balanced. To investigate this, 25 participants from the College of Wooster, between the ages of 18-24, were randomly assigned to either a time-constraint group or a control group (participants were not asked to record their age). Quantitative analyses reveal that intellectually humble participants perform better on the analytic reflection task (the CRT) than less intellectually humble participants, perform the same as less intellectually humble participants on the open-ended hypothetical reasoning task (the OEDST), and that time pressure did not influence how participants reasoned. In sum, this design aimed to test whether rationalization can be cultivated as a virtue-like capacity that maintains instrumental and practical responsibility even when cognitive resources are limited.

Advisor

Riley, Evan

Second Advisor

Clark, Alyssa

Department

Philosophy; Psychology

Disciplines

Arts and Humanities | Cognitive Psychology | Epistemology | Philosophy of Mind | Social and Behavioral Sciences

Publication Date

2026

Degree Granted

Bachelor of Arts

Document Type

Senior Independent Study Thesis

Download

Share

COinS
 

© Copyright 2026 William Laubacher