In class this past week, we had an interesting discussion regarding people with inconsistent beliefs, namely those who are pro-life and wish to outlaw abortions, but simultaneously support the death penalty. Our conversation centered on whether these two beliefs should be mutually exclusive, and whether those holding divergent beliefs can still be ethical.
This is a prime example of cognitive dissonance – the theory proposed by psychologist Leon Festinger that describes the “psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously”. I have always been fascinated by the psychological principles and phenomena that guide the way we view the world. As we discussed in my social psychology class recently, cognitive dissonance is a problem because it can lead to confirmation bias (a person’s tendency to only seek information that confirms and supports their views on an issue, while ignoring contradictory information) and motivated reasoning (an unconscious tendency to view information in a way that supports their conclusion regardless of its accuracy). Essentially, motivated reasoning is confirmation bias on steroids.
An example that illustrates these three psychological phenomena is the way people responded to President Obama getting elected in 2008 and becoming America’s first biracial president. At the time, some media outlets began labeling President Obama as a Muslim due to his “Muslim-sounding” name and ties to Kenya. This lead a certain segment of the American people to experience cognitive dissonance because, in their eyes, Obama was a Muslim and therefore, he couldn’t be President. This dissonance lead people to reconcile Obama’s presidency by following media outlets that supported their view and called for Obama to present his birth certificate; this consequently resulted in confirmation bias. Finally, when President Obama did present his birth certificate and proved he was born in Hawaii, the same people immediately challenged the document as inauthentic and called for his impeachment. Thus, even when presented with clear proof that went against their beliefs, some people began to dislike him more, which lead to their motivated reasoning.
Why do people act so irrationally in light of evidence that challenges their particular views and can we ever reduce motivated reasoning? A study conducted in 2010 and published in Political Psychology suggests that there is a tipping point associated with motivated reasoning. After reaching this point, the voters studied in the article began revising their beliefs in light of new evidence. Another hypothesis is that reasoning away contradictions and reconciling our own beliefs is much easier to handle psychologically than is the process of revising our previously held opinions and beliefs.
The big question that arises is how can we work to overcome human tendencies for motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, and cognitive dissonance? All three plague the way we make decisions, and the way we view and respond to events in the world. I think the first step is to at least become aware of our natural vulnerability for these psychological tendencies and to recognize the power they hold over our mind. Only by doing this can we hope to make more thoughtful and calculated decisions that benefit all parties.
Sources / Additional Reading:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cognitive%20dissonance
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00772.x/epdf
Follow Us!