Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 1, 2026
06:42
Continuous Theta Burst Stimulation of the Posterior Medial Frontal Cortex to Experimentally Reduce Ideological Threat Responses
Published on: September 28, 2018
14.3K
Belief polarization is not always irrational
Alan Jern1, Kai-min K Chang2, Charles Kemp1
1Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University.
Psychological Review
|April 16, 2014
Summary
Belief polarization, where opposing views strengthen after seeing the same data, can be rational. This study shows some polarization aligns with normative belief revision, not just irrationality.
Area of Science:
- Cognitive Science
- Decision Science
- Bayesian Inference
Background:
- Belief polarization is often seen as irrational behavior.
- Existing research frequently cites polarization as evidence of flawed reasoning.
Purpose of the Study:
- To demonstrate that some instances of belief polarization are consistent with normative belief revision.
- To differentiate conditions under which opposing beliefs should strengthen, weaken, or show mixed changes based on new data.
Main Methods:
- Utilized Bayesian networks to model relationships between hypotheses and data.
- Developed a normative framework for belief updating.
- Analyzed prior studies on belief polarization through this framework.
Main Results:
- Identified specific scenarios where normative agents with opposing beliefs would both strengthen their convictions.
- Distinguished cases requiring mutual belief weakening or divergent belief adjustments.
- A new experiment indicated human belief updating aligns with the normative predictions.
Conclusions:
- Certain belief polarization phenomena can be explained by rational, normative belief revision processes.
- The findings challenge the universal attribution of irrationality to belief polarization.
- Human belief updating may more closely follow normative models than previously assumed.
Related Concept Videos
01:01Group Polarization
31.3K
Group polarization is the strengthening of an original group attitude following the discussion of views within a group (Teger & Pruitt, 1967). That is, if a group initially favors a viewpoint, after discussion the group consensus is likely a stronger endorsement of the viewpoint. Conversely, if the group was initially opposed to a viewpoint, group discussion would likely lead to stronger opposition.
31.3K
01:24Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy
810
Cognitive-behavioral therapies (CBTs) are grounded in the belief that our thoughts profoundly influence our emotions and actions. Advocates of CBT emphasize three core assumptions: first, that cognitions are identifiable and measurable; second, that they are central to psychological functioning; and third, that irrational or maladaptive beliefs can be replaced with rational and adaptive ones. This transformative approach to therapy has paved the way for specific models such as Albert...
810
01:34Groupthink
37.0K
When in group settings, we are often influenced by the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors around us. Groupthink is another phenomenon of conformity where modification of the opinions of members in a group aligns with what they believe is the group consensus (Janis, 1972). In such situations, the group often takes action that individuals would not perform outside the group setting because groups make more extreme decisions than individuals do. Moreover, groupthink can hinder opposing trains of...
37.0K
01:30Unrealistic Optimism Bias
384
Unrealistic optimism bias is the tendency to overestimate the likelihood of positive outcomes. This cognitive bias makes individuals believe they are less likely to experience failures, setbacks, or risks and more likely to succeed than others. For example, people may assume they are less prone to health issues, accidents, or financial struggles than their peers, even when they share similar risk factors.One key component of this bias is the above-average effect, where individuals perceive...
384
01:31Confirmation Biases
6.0K
The confirmation bias is the tendency to focus on information that confirms our existing beliefs and ignore information that is inconsistent with our expectations. For example, if you think that your professor is not very nice, you notice all of the instances of rude behavior exhibited by the professor while ignoring the countless pleasant interactions he is involved in on a daily basis. Have you ever fallen prey to the confirmation bias, either as the source or target of such bias?
6.0K
01:53Cause and Effect
10.5K
While variables are sometimes correlated because one does cause the other, it could also be that some other factor, a confounding variable, is actually causing the systematic movement in our variables of interest. For instance, as sales in ice cream increase, so does the overall rate of crime. Is it possible that indulging in your favorite flavor of ice cream could send you on a crime spree? Or, after committing crime do you think you might decide to treat yourself to a cone?
10.5K