For researchers

Every question in Find out about yourself comes from a published research scale and is shown word for word, with its published answer scale. What is ours (the names, the one-line instructions, a few fillers, the country names) is marked. Every small change for the phone is in the Deviations table. Scores are worked out by the rules below, the same code on the phone and on the server. Answers are kept only for players who say yes at the end, without a name, an email or an address; the anonymised data will be released after the first paper, coarsened so no one can be picked out. Questions: logicers.world@gmail.com

Find out about yourself — item sheet (version 1.1, 22 October 2026: plain game and band names, the society ladder shown last, deviations D23–D24; version 1 on 21 October)

Every scored item and its response format is shown exactly as published; what is ours (names, instructions, fillers, country names) is marked. Every deviation from the published instrument is in the Deviations table at the end. Sources were opened and read on 21 October 2026; where only a copy or a secondary source could be opened, this is said.

Section name on the site: "Find out about yourself…". Nine games, about 62 taps, about six minutes. Player-facing names hide the construct; the construct is named once on each reveal ("What this looked at") and here.

Conventions on screen (ours, not part of any instrument): one item per screen; tappable dots; the two ends of every scale shown in the published words; the tapped value read back as "4 of 5", "7 of 10" or "60%"; a Skip button on every item; Back allowed within a game. Skip is coded as missing (ISSP "Can't choose", ESS "Don't know/Refusal", ANES no answer). A game scores when at least two-thirds of its scored items are answered. A random anonymous ID; nothing leaves the phone before consent.

Game 1 — "Your personality" · Big Five personality · BFI-10

Source. Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212. Appendix read in full (author copy); cross-checked with the GESIS ZIS documentation.

Published instruction (shown under "?"): "How well do the following statements describe your personality?" Stem (on every screen): I see myself as someone who…

Response format (verbatim): 1 Disagree strongly · 2 Disagree a little · 3 Neither agree nor disagree · 4 Agree a little · 5 Agree strongly. All five labels shown as words. Scoring (published): reverse 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 (6 − x); each trait = mean of its two items, 1–5. Order fixed as published. Shown to the player: five bars named Outgoing (E), Warm (A), Organised (C), Calm (reversed N), Curious (O); no bands. Guess before the game: "How outgoing are you?" (Quiet ⟷ Outgoing), stored as the self-insight gap for E. Not used: the paper's optional eleventh Agreeableness item ("… is considerate and kind to almost everyone"). The authors recommend it when Agreeableness is central; here it is a correlate, and ten items is already the one exception to the site's up-to-nine rule. Documented.

Game 2 — "Who should decide?" · Populist attitudes · Akkerman, Mudde & Zaslove (2014)

Source. Akkerman, A., Mudde, C., & Zaslove, A. (2014). How populist are the people? Measuring populist attitudes in voters. Comparative Political Studies, 47(9), 1324–1353, Table 1. Read from a full-text copy of the published article; cross-checked against the authors' Dutch summary (Res Publica, 2015) and the reproduction in Castanho Silva et al. (2020, APSR supplement).

Country tap first (ours): "Are you Italian?" (the header country) · Yes · No → "Where are you from?" (optional) list with flags; Skip allowed. The chosen country fills [Parliament] here and in game 7 and is the player's country in every comparison; the header country is stored beside it. If skipped, the header country fills the names and the player's country is recorded as "not said".

Stem: none. Instruction (ours): How much do you agree?

[Parliament] = the everyday English name of the player's national parliament from the institution table ("the Dutch parliament" in the original; e.g. "Parliament" for Italy, "the Bundestag", "Congress"). The original's definite article is kept where the name takes one.

Response format (verbatim ends): 1 "I very much disagree" to 5 "I very much agree"; points 2–4 are unlabelled in the paper; on screen they carry our words disagree · in between · agree (D23) and are read back as "4 of 5". Scoring (published): mean of the six items (the authors' populism scale: POP1–POP5 and POP7; POP6 did not load, POP8 was dropped in the original analysis). Higher = more populist. Order: shuffled per play, positions recorded (ours; the original was a web panel grid). Bands (ours, on the 1–5 mean): With the experts (< 2.67) · In the middle (2.67–3.66) · With the people (≥ 3.67). Bands are display only; the raw mean is the record. Known caveats for the paper: all six items are positively worded (acquiescence); later work (Castanho Silva et al. 2020) finds the scale strong on people-centrism and anti-elitism and weak on the Manichaean element; POP4 is sensitive to translation (English only in wave 1); in Flanders POP6 (good versus evil) loaded only .32, and the authors replaced it with two anti-establishment items (Spruyt et al. 2016), which fits our use of POP1–5 and POP7.

Game 3 — "Optimist or realist?" · Optimism · LOT-R

Source. Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1063–1078. Items, order, fillers and scoring read from Carver's official distribution page (psy.miami.edu) and the Fetzer Institute sheet; the article itself is paywalled.

Published instruction (shown under "?"): "Please be as honest and accurate as you can throughout. Try not to let your response to one statement influence your responses to other statements. There are no "correct" or "incorrect" answers. Answer according to your own feelings, rather than how you think "most people" would answer."

Published positions: our 6 replaces published filler 6 ("It's important for me to keep busy"); published filler 8 ("I don't get upset too easily") is dropped, so published items 9 and 10 sit at positions 8 and 9. The scored items keep their relative order. Response format (verbatim, 1994 numeric form): 0 strongly disagree · 1 disagree · 2 neutral · 3 agree · 4 strongly agree. All five words shown. Scoring (published): reverse published items 3, 7, 9 (our positions 3, 7, 8; 4 − x); sum of the six scored items, 0–24; continuous, no cut-offs. Bands (ours, on 0–24): The realist (0–11) · Realist with hope (12–17) · The optimist (18–24). Attention check rule (codebook): a player who does not choose Agree (3) is flagged "failed attention check"; exclusion decided in analysis, never on screen.

Game 4 — "Raising a child" · Authoritarian predisposition · child-rearing values

Source. The four-pair child-rearing battery of the American National Election Studies, used by Feldman & Stenner (1997, Political Psychology 18(4), 741–770) and Stenner (2005, The Authoritarian Dynamic). Wording read from the ANES 2020 Time Series post-election questionnaire (CHILDIND, CHILDCUR, CHILDOBED, CHILDCONSID) and the ANES 2020 and 2024 codebooks; Feldman & Stenner's and Stenner's own printed wording could not be opened (both use the ANES battery). Scoring convention from Pérez & Hetherington (2014) and Engelhardt, Feldman & Hetherington.

Published stem (ANES 2020): "Although there are a number of qualities that people feel that children should have, every person thinks that some are more important than others. I am going to read you pairs of desirable qualities. Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have:" — shown under "?"; on screen the instruction (ours) reads "Which matters more for a child? Tap one."

Response format: forced choice between the two qualities, as in ANES web self-completion (no "Both/Neither"; those are volunteered-only codes in interviewer modes). Skip = missing. Scoring (published convention): count of authoritarian choices, 0–4, rescaled 0–1. The two fillers are stored but never scored. Bands (ours): Freedom first (0–1) · A bit of both (2) · Rules first (3–4). Order: fixed; the fillers sit at positions 3 and 6, after the pairs they follow.

Game 5 — "Secret plans" · Conspiracy mentality · CMQ

Source. Bruder, M., Haffke, P., Neave, N., Nouripanah, N., & Imhoff, R. (2013). Measuring individual differences in generic beliefs in conspiracy theories across cultures: Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 4:225. Full text and Appendix read.

Published instruction (shown under "?"): "For each of the statements below, please use the respective rating scale to indicate how likely it is in your opinion that the statement is true. Remember that there are no 'objectively' right or wrong answers and that we are interested in your personal opinion." Stem (on every screen): I think that…

Response format (verbatim, all 11 labels shown on tap): 0% certainly not · 10% extremely unlikely · 20% very unlikely · 30% unlikely · 40% somewhat unlikely · 50% undecided · 60% somewhat likely · 70% likely · 80% very likely · 90% extremely likely · 100% certain. Coded 0–10. Scoring (published): mean of the five, 0–10. No reversed items. Order: shuffled per play, positions recorded. Bands (ours, on the 0–10 mean): Trusts what is said (< 4) · Asks questions first (4–6.4) · Looks for secret plans (≥ 6.5).

Game 6 — "Four riddles" · Cognitive reflection · CRT-2

Source. Thomson, K. S., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2016). Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1), 99–113. Full text read. Multiple-choice format follows the construction rule of Sirota, M., & Juanchich, M. (2018), Behavior Research Methods, 50, 2511–2522 (full text read): the correct answer, the intuitive wrong answer, plus two further wrong answers. Sirota & Juanchich built options for the original CRT only; the options below for the CRT-2 are ours, built by their rule.

Published item 4: "How many cubic feet of dirt are there in a hole that is 3' deep x 3' wide x 3' long?" Converted to metres and "earth" for a world audience; the structure, the lure (the product of the three numbers) and the answer are unchanged. Response format: four options, order shuffled per play, position recorded; Skip allowed. Response time per riddle recorded. Scoring (published): number correct, 0–4; secondary coding per item: correct / lure / other / skipped. After the four (ours, optional, one tap): "Had you seen any of these before?" Yes · No — the prior-exposure flag the authors recommend. Result names (ours): Quick answers (0–1) · Half and half (2) · Careful thinker (3–4). Guess before the game: "How many of the four will catch you?" 0–4. Explanations shown on the reveal (ours): 1. If you pass the person in second place, you take their place: second. · 2. "All but 8 died" means 8 are left. · 3. Emily's father's third daughter is Emily. · 4. A hole has no earth in it; that is what makes it a hole.

Game 7 — "Who do you trust?" · Trust in institutions · ESS

Source. European Social Survey, Round 10 source questionnaire (final), items B6–B12 (card 9); wording unchanged since Round 1 (checked against the ESS6 source questionnaire).

Published lead-in: "Using this card, please tell me on a score of 0-10 how much you personally trust each of the institutions I read out. 0 means you do not trust an institution at all, and 10 means you have complete trust." Shown under "?"; on screen (ours): "How much do you trust each one, from 0 to 10?"

[Parliament] from the institution table; for countries with no sitting parliament the table still gives the everyday name (trust in it is an attitude and is asked anyway, as the ESS does). Response format (verbatim ends): 00 No trust at all · 10 Complete trust; 01–09 unlabelled, read back as "7 of 10". Scoring: single items 0–10 (the record); for the band, the mean of B6–B10 and B12 (B11 excluded so that EU and non-EU players are on the same scale). Each item is compared with the pools on its own. Bands (ours, on the 0–10 mean): Careful with trust (< 4) · Trusts some (4–6.4) · Trusts a lot (≥ 6.5). Order: fixed as published; the filler last.

Game 8 — "Your country" · National chauvinism and pride · ISSP 2013

Source. ISSP 2013 National Identity III, source (basic) questionnaire, Q3 a–f. Read from a copy of the ISSP source questionnaire (GESIS archive ZA5950).

Published stem: "How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?" — on screen (ours): How much do you agree?

[Country] and [Nationals] from the institution table ("Italy", "Italians", "the French"); [Nationality] = the singular adjective ("Italian"). Response format (verbatim): Agree strongly · Agree · Neither agree nor disagree · Disagree · Disagree strongly (· Can't choose = our Skip). All five words shown. Scoring: ISSP codes 1 = Agree strongly … 5 = Disagree strongly; for the chauvinism index reverse so that higher = more chauvinist; index = mean of Q3a, c, d, e (the standard four-item chauvinism scale), 1–5. Q3b and Q3f are stored and reported as single items, not in the index. Bands (ours, on the 1–5 index): World citizen (< 2.67) · Country and world (2.67–3.66) · Country first (≥ 3.67). Order: fixed as published (a–f). Not used: Q3g, Q3h, the Q4 domain-pride list, Q12 general pride, Q1 closeness, Q2 "truly [nationality]" (Q2e names religion: site rule).

Game 9 — "Nine quick questions" · nine single-item controls

Shown in this order (ours): light first, political last; from 22 Oct 2026 the long society-ladder item (3) is shown last, so the order on screen is 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 3 (item numbers unchanged). Each one is a published single item with its published ends; each is compared with the pools on its own. Skip on each.

Notes: ESS items are shown without "Using this card" and "Please use this card" (interviewer instructions). Item 3 is shown in full on one screen beside a drawn ladder; it is the longest text in the section and is kept because it is the item. Item 9: the Eurobarometer's "Neither the one nor the other" is a spontaneous (not read out) code and is not shown; Skip = DK. Item 7 "here" is kept as published (the player answers about [Country]). No guess and no bands in this game.

Deviations table

Institution table

A separate file, 204 rows (193 UN members + Kosovo, Taiwan, Palestine, Vatican City, Hong Kong, Macau, Puerto Rico, Guam, Greenland, Faroe Islands, Bermuda), with: ISO code, country name, flag, how people say "the [Nationals]", the parliament's everyday name and formal name, EU membership and a note where the parliament is suspended, appointed or absent (Afghanistan, Eritrea, Haiti, Sudan, Palestine, Kuwait, Guinea-Bissau; transitional bodies in Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, South Sudan; advisory councils in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Brunei, the Vatican). Names checked against Wikipedia's list of legislatures and the country pages on 21 October 2026; Kazakhstan's new Kurultai (August 2026) and Peru's restored Senate (July 2026) included.

Sources opened for this sheet

Rammstedt & John 2007 (author copy); Akkerman, Mudde & Zaslove 2014 (full-text copy; Dutch summary 2015; Castanho Silva et al. 2020 supplement); Carver's LOT-R page; Fetzer LOT-R sheet; ANES 2020 post-election questionnaire and 2020/2024 codebooks; Pérez & Hetherington 2014; Engelhardt, Feldman & Hetherington (measurement paper); Bruder et al. 2013 (Frontiers, full text and appendix); Thomson & Oppenheimer 2016 (JDM, full text); Sirota & Juanchich 2018 (BRM, full text); ESS Round 10 and Round 6 source questionnaires; ISSP 2013 source questionnaire (GESIS ZA5950 copy); Dohmen et al. IZA DP 1730 and the SOEP Companion; Gallup's Cantril scale page; the MacArthur scale distribution sheet; Eurobarometer 77.3, 86.2 and 71.1 questionnaires; Spruyt et al. 2016 and Van Hauwaert & van Kessel 2018 (full text; for D6 and the populism caveats). Not opened: the JPSP 1994 article, Feldman & Stenner 1997 and Stenner 2005 (paywalled; their wording is taken from the instruments they used).

Find out about yourself — scoring rules (codebook part 1)

Rules version 1, 21 October 2026 (band names made plain on 22 October; the edges and everything else unchanged, so the version stays 1). Written from the item sheet (claude/find-outs-items.md, version 1) plus the three rules Khayyam settled on 21 October (marked K). The other open questions from the data pass (S1, S2, S4) turned out to change no possible score; they are settled in G2 and G6. The code is claude/find-outs-scoring/scoring.js; every result carries rules_version: "1" so the dataset always says which rules made a score. If a rule changes, the version goes up and old answers can be re-scored from the raw record.

The raw answers are the record. Scores and bands are derived and can always be rebuilt from the raw answers.

General rules

G1. Answered or not. An item is answered when it has a valid value. A skipped item is stored as null. An item that was never shown (the European Parliament item outside the EU) is left out of the answers. Both count as not answered.

G2. When a game scores (the two-thirds rule). A game scores when at least two-thirds of its scored items are answered, rounded up: needed = ⌈2 × scored items ÷ 3⌉. Fillers and the attention check are not scored items and never count.

A game that does not score gives no score and no band (both null); the player can redo it at once (plan rule 10).

G3. Partial answers (K, 21 Oct). When a game scores but some items were skipped, the score is the average of the answered items, put back on the published scale. With nothing skipped this gives exactly the published score. Two exceptions, G4 and G5.

G4. Big Five pairs (K, 21 Oct). Each Big Five trait needs both of its items. If one is skipped, that trait is left out (null) and the other traits still show. Reason: each pair has one reversed item, so one item alone leans toward yes-saying.

G5. Riddles (K, 21 Oct). A skipped riddle counts as not correct. The score is the number correct out of four. Skipping can never raise the score.

G6. Band edges are exact (S1 and S2, settled 21 Oct). Bands are decided by exact arithmetic on whole-number sums, never by comparing a rounded decimal: - 2.67 and 3.67 (games 2 and 8) mean exactly 8/3 and 11/3. Every possible answer pattern gets the same band as rounding the mean to two decimals would give (checked by listing every pattern), so this changes nothing for players. It only avoids a computer comparing 3.6667 with 3.67 and getting it wrong. - "4–6.4" and "≥ 6.5" (games 5 and 7) are read as lower bounds: below 4; 4 up to but not including 6.5; 6.5 and above. No possible score falls between 6.4 and 6.5, so this also changes nothing. - The score itself is stored at full precision. Rounding is for display only, and a band is never worked out again from a rounded number.

G7. Bad input stops the scoring. An unknown item key, a value outside the scale, a non-whole number or an option that is not on the list raises an error. That way a bug in the game screens shows up in testing instead of quietly entering the data.

Game by game

Answers are given as an object: item key → value (or null for skipped).

Game 1 — Big Five (BFI-10)

• Keys "1"–"10" (the published item numbers). Values: whole numbers 1–5.
• Reversed: 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 → 6 − x.
• Traits (mean of the two items after reversing): E = 1, 6 · A = 2, 7 · C = 3, 8 · N = 4, 9 · O = 5, 10.
• Calm = 6 − N (the bar shown as "Calm").
• Scores when at least 7 of 10 are answered (G2); then each trait follows G4.
• No single score, no bands: score and band are null.

Game 2 — Populist attitudes (Akkerman, Mudde & Zaslove 2014)

• Keys "POP1", "POP2", "POP3", "POP4", "POP5", "POP7". Values 1–5. No reversed items.
• Score = mean of answered items, 1–5.
• Bands: With the experts (below 8/3) · In the middle (8/3 up to but not including 11/3) · With the people (11/3 and above).

Game 3 — Optimism (LOT-R)

• Keys "1"–"9" (our positions). Values 0–4.
• Scored: positions 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9. Reversed: 3, 7, 8 → 4 − x. Fillers: 2, 5 (stored, not scored). Attention check: 6.
• Score = sum of the six scored items, 0–24. With skips (G3): 6 × mean of the answered scored items (prorated: true).
• Bands (ours; the LOT-R itself has no cut-offs): The realist (below 12) · Realist with hope (12 up to but not including 18) · The optimist (18 and above). With no skips these are exactly the item sheet's whole-number bands 0–11, 12–17, 18–24; with skips no possible score falls between 11 and 12 or between 17 and 18.
• Attention check: passed only when position 6 is exactly 3 (agree). Anything else, including a skip, is "failed attention check". Flag only; it never changes the score or the screen.

Game 4 — Child-rearing values (ANES)

• Keys "1"–"6" (positions). Value: the chosen option, written exactly as on the sheet.
• Pairs and the authoritarian choice: 1 Independence / Respect for elders · 2 Curiosity / Good manners · 4 Obedience / Self-reliance · 5 Being considerate / Well behaved. Fillers: 3 (A big imagination / A good memory), 6 (One best friend / Lots of friends), stored, not scored.
• Share = authoritarian choices ÷ answered pairs, 0–1 (the published 0–1 rescale when all four are answered).
• Score = 4 × share, 0–4 (the published count when all four are answered).
• Bands (ours): the score rounded to the nearest whole number, then the item sheet's bands: Freedom first (0–1) · A bit of both (2) · Rules first (3–4). With all four answered this is exactly the item sheet's rule. With three answered, 1 of 3 gives Freedom first and 2 of 3 gives Rules first, the same way 1 of 4 gives Freedom first and 3 of 4 gives Rules first. (A score can never end in .5, so there are no ties.)

Game 5 — Conspiracy mentality (CMQ)

• Keys "1"–"5". Values 0–10 (0% = 0 … 100% = 10). No reversed items.
• Score = mean of answered items, 0–10.
• Bands: Trusts what is said (below 4) · Asks questions first (4 up to but not including 6.5) · Looks for secret plans (6.5 and above).

Game 6 — Riddles (CRT-2)

• Keys "1"–"4". Value: the chosen option, written exactly as on the sheet ("Second", "8", "Emily", "None" are the correct ones). Optional key "seen_before": true, false or null.
• Each riddle is coded correct / lure / other / skipped.
• Score = number correct, 0–4; skipped counts as not correct (G5). The game still needs 3 of 4 answered to score (G2).
• Bands: Quick answers (0–1) · Half and half (2) · Careful thinker (3–4).

Game 7 — Trust in institutions (ESS)

• Keys "B6", "B7", "B8", "B9", "B10", "B11", "B12", "grandmother". Values 0–10.
• Band items: B6–B10 and B12. B11 (European Parliament, EU only) and the grandmother filler are stored and reported, never in the score.
• Score = mean of the answered band items, 0–10. A skipped B6 is fine as long as 4 of the 6 are answered (rule G2).
• Bands: Careful with trust (below 4) · Trusts some (4 up to but not including 6.5) · Trusts a lot (6.5 and above).
• Every item is also returned on its own, because each one is compared with the pools on its own.

Game 8 — National chauvinism (ISSP 2013, Q3)

• Keys "Q3a"–"Q3f". Values: the ISSP codes 1–5 (1 = Agree strongly … 5 = Disagree strongly).
• Chauvinism index = mean of (6 − code) over the answered items among Q3a, Q3c, Q3d, Q3e, 1–5, higher = more chauvinist.
• Q3b and Q3f are returned as their raw ISSP codes, not in the index. Q3b is marked R on the item sheet: agreeing with it points away from chauvinism. It is reported as the raw code; the direction is set in the analysis, not here.
• Bands: World citizen (below 8/3) · Country and world (8/3 up to but not including 11/3) · Country first (11/3 and above).

Game 9 — Quick ones

• Keys "1"–"9". Values: 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 → 0–10; 3 (society ladder) → 1–10; 5 (interest in politics) → ESS codes 1 very · 2 quite · 3 hardly · 4 not at all interested; 9 (direction) → 1 right direction · 2 wrong direction.
• No score, no bands, no two-thirds rule: each item is returned on its own.

What the code returns

Every game returns:

Plus, by game: - 1: traits {E, A, C, N, O} and calm; each a number or null. - 3: mean (0–4), prorated (true only when the game scored with a skipped scored item; false otherwise, including when it did not score), attention_passed. - 4: share (0–1), count (authoritarian choices), pairs_answered. - 6: codes {"1"…"4": "correct" / "lure" / "other" / "skipped"}, seen_before. - 7: items {B6 … B12, grandmother}: each 0–10 or null. - 8: single {Q3b, Q3f}: raw ISSP code or null. - 9: items {"1"…"9"}: value or null.

When a game does not score, the extra fields that are scores (traits, calm, mean, share, count) are null (traits is a single null, not five); the ones that describe answers (codes, items, single, attention_passed, seen_before, pairs_answered) are still filled in.

Not in this part

The guess and the self-insight gap, the world curve and its thirds, the portrait conditions and the comparison pools are built in B1, on top of these scores.

The studies behind every "Did you know?", "Myth or fact?" and portrait line

• Bakker, Rooduijn & Schumacher (2016) — "The psychological roots of populist voting: Evidence from the United States, the Netherlands and Germany." European Journal of Political Research 55(2), 302–320. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12121
• Rooduijn (2018) — "What unites the voter bases of populist parties? Comparing the electorates of 15 populist parties." European Political Science Review 10(3), 351–368. doi:10.1017/S1755773917000145
• Swami, Voracek, Stieger, Tran & Furnham (2014) — "Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories." Cognition 133(3), 572–585. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.006
• Pennycook & Rand (2019) — "Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning." Cognition 188, 39–50. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
• Imhoff & Bruder (2014) — "Speaking (un-)truth to power: Conspiracy mentality as a generalised political attitude." European Journal of Personality 28(1), 25–43. doi:10.1002/per.1930
• Castanho Silva, Vegetti & Littvay (2017) — "The elite is up to something: Exploring the relation between populism and belief in conspiracy theories." Swiss Political Science Review 23(4), 423–443. doi:10.1111/spsr.12270
• Carver, Scheier & Segerstrom (2010) — "Optimism." Clinical Psychology Review 30(7), 879–889. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.01.006
• Stenner (2005) — The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. (BOOK — SECONDARY SOURCES ONLY)
• Spruyt, Keppens & Van Droogenbroeck (2016) — "Who supports populism and what attracts people to it?" Political Research Quarterly 69(2), 335–346. doi:10.1177/1065912916639138
• Geurkink, Zaslove, Sluiter & Jacobs (2020) — "Populist attitudes, political trust, and external political efficacy: Old wine in new bottles?" Political Studies 68(1), 247–267. doi:10.1177/0032321719842768
• Van Hauwaert & van Kessel (2018) — "Beyond protest and discontent: A cross-national analysis of the effect of populist attitudes and issue positions on populist party support." European Journal of Political Research 57(1), 68–92. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12216
• Steenvoorden & Harteveld (2018) — "The appeal of nostalgia: the influence of societal pessimism on support for populist radical right parties." West European Politics 41(1), 28–52. doi:10.1080/01402382.2017.1334138
• Dohmen, Falk, Huffman, Sunde, Schupp & Wagner (2011) — "Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences." Journal of the European Economic Association 9(3), 522–550. doi:10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.x
• DeNeve & Cooper (1998) — "The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being." Psychological Bulletin 124(2), 197–229. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.197
• Barrick & Mount (1991) — "The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis." Personnel Psychology 44(1), 1–26. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
• Poropat (2009) — "A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance." Psychological Bulletin 135(2), 322–338. doi:10.1037/a0014996
• Rammstedt & John (2007) — "Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German." Journal of Research in Personality 41(1), 203–212.
• Akkerman, Mudde & Zaslove (2014) — "How populist are the people? Measuring populist attitudes in voters." Comparative Political Studies 47(9), 1324–1353.
• Bruder, Haffke, Neave, Nouripanah & Imhoff (2013) — "Measuring individual differences in generic beliefs in conspiracy theories across cultures: Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire." Frontiers in Psychology 4:225.
• Imhoff et al. (2022) — "Conspiracy mentality and political orientation across 26 countries." Nature Human Behaviour 6, 392–403. (bonus; opened full text https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01258-7)
• Thomson & Oppenheimer (2016) — "Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test." Judgment and Decision Making 11(1), 99–113.
• Frederick (2005) — "Cognitive reflection and decision making." Journal of Economic Perspectives 19(4), 25–42.
• Vazire (2010) — "Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98(2), 281–300.
• World Happiness Report 2024 (Helliwell et al.), chapter 2 "Happiness of the younger, the older, and those in between."
• Trust across countries — Our World in Data, "Trust" (based on World Values Survey).
• Smith & Kim (2006) — "National pride in comparative perspective: 1995/96 and 2003/04." International Journal of Public Opinion Research 18(1), 127–136.