[ad_1]
Belief persistence is the tendency to cling to ideas despite contrary evidence, which can prevent honest assessment and decision-making. Confirmation bias, a preference for information that supports current beliefs, is a major factor. Awareness of this phenomenon does not necessarily protect against it, but considering the opposite can lead to a more unbiased opinion.
Perseverance in belief is the tendency to hold on to ideas even in the face of contrary evidence. This resistance could cause people to hold back any kind of belief or opinion when the belief is proven to be unfounded or even turned out to be completely false. In some cases, this delusion can provide the self-confidence needed to tackle new challenges, but persistence in the belief can also prevent the honest assessment needed to make good decisions.
People face and reject contradictory evidence every day. For example, if a man who believes he is a good driver receives a ticket, he could reasonably believe that this single incident proves nothing about his overall ability. If, however, a man who has caused three traffic accidents in one month believes that he is a good driver, persistence in the belief can probably be said to be at work.
Research on belief persistence has identified three categories of beliefs that may be involved. Self-impressions may underestimate or overestimate the individual’s actual qualities or capabilities. Social impressions refer to specific individuals and qualities that these people possess. Naïve theories are impressions of the way the world works, including social groups and stereotypes, religious tenets, home remedies, and expectations for the future.
A psychological phenomenon called confirmation bias is a major factor in belief persistence. Confirmation bias is a preference for information that supports current beliefs. This bias gives undue weight to supporting fact while dismissing or discrediting ideas that contradict current beliefs.
Studies in this field typically involve providing subjects with information that is subsequently discredited. For example, subjects might be given a test. Half of the subjects are initially told they did well, and the other half are told they did poorly. These subjects are then told that the tests had been tampered with and that they were actually being tested on their reactions to success or failure. A list is presented, showing subjects reportedly told they had succeeded and those reportedly told they failed, demonstrating that what the subject was told had nothing to do with performance.
After this presentation, subjects are asked to rate their actual performance. Even if the previous assessment has been thoroughly discredited, most subjects will maintain this assessment. Those who were told they did well generally rate themselves higher than normal, and those who were initially told they did poorly rate themselves below par. This phenomenon has been demonstrated in numerous studies.
Awareness of perseverance in faith doesn’t seem to offer much protection. Alerting subjects by asking for their unbiased opinions did not appear to alter the results. Even when people are made explicitly aware of persistence in beliefs and are asked to consider beliefs in this light, the beliefs are likely to remain unchanged.
An effective technique in countering this bias is to consider the opposite. When asked to make a counterargument, the individual should consider information that has previously been rejected. The result is a more considered and unbiased opinion.
[ad_2]