Belief bias

{{Short description|Judging arguments by the plausibility of their conclusion}} {{For|treating people unequally because of their religion|Religious discrimination|Religious persecution}} '''Belief bias''' is the tendency to judge the strength of [[argument]]s based on the plausibility of their conclusion rather than how strongly they justify that conclusion.<ref name="SternbergLeighton2004">{{cite book|author1=Robert J. Sternberg|author2=Jacqueline P. Leighton|title=The Nature of Reasoning|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ujoNZNZrZcoC&pg=PA300|access-date=3 September 2013|year=2004|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-00928-7|page=300}}</ref> A person is more likely to accept an argument that supports a conclusion that aligns with their values, beliefs and prior knowledge, while rejecting counter arguments to the conclusion.<ref name="Human Reasoning: The Psychology of Deduction">{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/humanreasoningps0000evan_l5y4|url-access=registration|quote=belief bias.|title=Human Reasoning: The Psychology of Deduction|last2=Newstead|first2=Stephen|last3=Byrne|first3=Ruth|date=1993|publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers|page=[https://archive.org/details/humanreasoningps0000evan_l5y4/page/243 243]|last1=Evans|first1=Jonathan|author1-link=Jonathan St B. T. Evans|access-date=26 January 2017|isbn=9780863773136}}</ref> Belief bias is an extremely common and therefore significant form of error; we can easily be blinded by our beliefs and reach the wrong conclusion. Belief bias has been found to influence various reasoning tasks, including conditional reasoning,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Evans|first1=Jonathan St. B. T.|author1-link=Jonathan St B. T. Evans|last2=Handley|first2=Simon J.|last3=Bacon|first3=Alison M.|date=2009-01-01|title=Reasoning Under Time Pressure|journal=Experimental Psychology|volume=56|issue=2|pages=77–83|doi=10.1027/1618-3169.56.2.77|pmid=19261582|issn=1618-3169}}</ref> relation reasoning<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Andrews|first=Glenda|date=2010-10-01|title=Belief-based and analytic processing in transitive inference depends on premise integration difficulty|journal=Memory & Cognition|language=en|volume=38|issue=7|pages=928–940|doi=10.3758/MC.38.7.928|pmid=20921105|issn=0090-502X|doi-access=free|hdl=10072/35167|hdl-access=free}}</ref> and transitive reasoning.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Roberts|first1=Maxwell J.|last2=Sykes|first2=Elizabeth D. A.|date=2003-01-01|title=Belief bias and relational reasoning|journal=The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A|volume=56|issue=1|pages=131–154|doi=10.1080/02724980244000233|issn=0272-4987|pmid=12587899|s2cid=44544112}}</ref>

== Syllogisms == {{Main|Syllogism}} A ''[[syllogism]]'' is a kind of [[logical argument]] in which one [[proposition]] (the conclusion) is [[Inference|inferred]] from two or more others (the ''[[premise]]s'') of a specific form. The classical example of a valid syllogism is:

::All humans are mortal. (major premise) ::Socrates is human. ([[minor premise]]) ::Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (conclusion)

An example of an invalid syllogism is:

:: All teenage girls are ambitious. :: Teenage girls study hard. :: Therefore, girls study hard because they are ambitious.

Typically, a majority of test subjects in studies incorrectly identify this syllogism as one in which the conclusion follows from the premises.<ref name="SternbergLeighton2004"/> It might be true ''in the real world'' that a) ''girls study'' and b) ''this is because they are ambitious''. However, this argument is a fallacy, because the conclusion is not supported by its premises. The validity of an argument is independent from the truth of its conclusion: there are valid arguments for false conclusions and invalid arguments for true conclusions. Hence, it is an error to judge the validity of an argument from the plausibility of its conclusion. This is the reasoning error known as belief bias.<ref name="SternbergLeighton2004"/>

When a person gives a response that is determined by the believability of the conclusion rather than logical validity, this is referred to as belief bias only when a syllogism is used. This phenomenon is so closely related to syllogistic reasoning that, when it does occur, in areas such as [[Wason selection task|Wason's selection task]] or the [[THOG problem]], it is called "memory cueing" or the "effects of content".<ref name="Human Reasoning: The Psychology of Deduction"/>

== Dual-process theory of belief bias == Many researchers in thinking and reasoning have provided evidence for a [[Dual process theory|dual-process]] cognitive approach to reasoning, judgment and decision making. They argue that these two mental processes (system 1 and system 2) engage in a constant battle for control over our brain to reason and make decisions. System 1 can be described as an automatic response system<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last1=Schneider|first1=Walter|last2=Shiffrin|first2=Richard M.|date=1977-01-01|title=Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention.|journal=Psychological Review|language=en|volume=84|issue=1|pages=1–66|doi=10.1037/0033-295x.84.1.1|issn=1939-1471}}</ref> characterised by "unconscious",<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last1=Wilson|first1=Barbara J.|last2=Smith|first2=Stacy L.|last3=Potter|first3=W. James|last4=Kunkel|first4=Dale|last5=Linz|first5=Daniel|last6=Colvin|first6=Carolyn M.|last7=Donnerstein|first7=Edward|authorlink7=Edward Donnerstein|date=2002-01-01|title=Violence in Children's Television Programming: Assessing the Risks|journal=Journal of Communication|language=en|volume=52|issue=1|pages=5–35|doi=10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02531.x|issn=1460-2466}}</ref> "intuitive"<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Hammond|first=Thomas H.|date=1996-04-01|title=Formal Theory and the Institutions of Governance|journal=Governance|language=en|volume=9|issue=2|pages=107–185|doi=10.1111/j.1468-0491.1996.tb00237.x|issn=1468-0491}}</ref> and "rapid"<ref name=":0" /> evaluation; whereas system 2 is said to be a controlled response system,<ref name=":0" /> characterised by “conscious”,<ref name=":1" /> “analytic”<ref name=":2" /> and “slow”<ref name=":0" /> evaluation; some researchers even claimed to have found a link between general intelligence and the effectiveness of decision making.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Reber |first1=Authur S. |title=Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious |date=1993 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=0-19-510658-X |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sá |first1=Walter C. |last2=West |first2=Richard F. |last3=Stanovich |first3=Keith E. |s2cid=8184173 |title=The domain specificity and generality of belief bias: Searching for a generalizable critical thinking skill. |journal=Journal of Educational Psychology |date=1999 |volume=91 |issue=3 |pages=497–510 |doi=10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.497 |language=en |issn=1939-2176}}</ref>

The dual-process cognitive theory is different from the two minds hypothesis<!-- Clarification needed. What is 2 minds hypothesis? -->. Research done by [[Jonathan St B. T. Evans]] in 2007 provided evidence for the view that System 1, which serves as a quick heuristic processor, fights for control over System 2's slower analytical approach.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Evans |first1=Jonathan St B. T.|author1-link=Jonathan St B. T. Evans |title=On the resolution of conflict in dual process theories of reasoning |journal=Thinking & Reasoning |date=1 October 2007 |volume=13 |issue=4 |pages=321–339 |doi=10.1080/13546780601008825 |s2cid=121501595 |language=en |issn=1354-6783}}</ref> In the experiment, participants were asked to evaluate syllogisms that have valid arguments with unconvincing conclusions; valid arguments with convincing conclusions; invalid arguments with unconvincing conclusions; invalid arguments with convincing conclusions. The results show that when the conclusion is believable, people blindly accept invalid conclusions more so than invalid arguments are accepted.

== Influencing factors of belief bias ==

=== Time === Various studies have proved that the time period for which a subject is allowed to think when evaluating arguments is related to the tendency for belief bias to take place. In a study done by Evans and Holmes in 2005,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Evans|first1=Jonathan St B. T.|author1-link=Jonathan St B. T. Evans|last2=Curtis-Holmes|first2=Jodie|date=2005-09-01|title=Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning|journal=Thinking & Reasoning|volume=11|issue=4|pages=382–389|doi=10.1080/13546780542000005|s2cid=145290672|issn=1354-6783}}</ref> they recruited two different groups of people to answer a series of reasoning questions. One group of people were given only two seconds to answer the questions; whereas the other group of people were allowed to use as much time as they would like to answer the questions. The result obtained was that a higher percentage of incorrect answers were found in the time pressured group than the other; they concluded that this was a result of a shift in logical to belief-biased way of thinking.

=== Nature of content === The nature of the content presented can also affect belief bias of an individual as shown by a study done by Goel & Vartanian in 2011.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Goel|first1=Vinod|last2=Vartanian|first2=Oshin|date=2011-01-01|title=Negative emotions can attenuate the influence of beliefs on logical reasoning|journal=Cognition and Emotion|volume=25|issue=1|pages=121–131|doi=10.1080/02699931003593942|pmid=21432659|s2cid=21884466|issn=0269-9931}}</ref> In their experiment, 34 participants were presented with a syllogism upon each trial. Each trial were either neutral or carried some degree of negative content. Negative content involved in the experiment were politically incorrect social norm violations, such as the statement “Some wars are not unjustified, Some wars involve raping of women, therefore, Some raping of women is not unjustified”. For syllogisms where the content was neutral, the results were consistent with studies of belief bias; however, for syllogisms with [[negative affectivity|negative emotional]] content, participants were more likely to reason logically on invalid syllogisms with believable conclusions instead of automatically judging them to be valid. In other words, the effect of belief bias is reduced when the content presented is of negative emotion. According to Goel and Vartanian, this is because negative emotions prompts us to reason in more careful and in more detail. This argument was supported by the observation that for questions with negative emotions, the reaction time taken was significantly longer than that of questions that a neutral.

=== Instructions given === In an experiment done by Evans, Newstead, Allen & Pollard in 1994,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Newstead|first1=Stephen E.|last2=Pollard|first2=Paul|last3=Evans|first3=Jonathan St. B. T.|author3-link=Jonathan St B. T. Evans|last4=Allen|first4=Julie L.|date=1992-12-01|title=The source of belief bias effects in syllogistic reasoning|journal=Cognition|volume=45|issue=3|pages=257–284|doi=10.1016/0010-0277(92)90019-E|pmid=1490324|s2cid=42135889}}</ref> where subjects were given detailed instructions which lack specific reference to the notion of logical necessity when answering questions, it was shown that a larger proportion of answers actually rejected invalid arguments with convincing conclusions as opposed to when no further instructions were given when the subjects were asked to answer the questions. The results of the experiments reflects that when elaborated instructions were given to subjects to reason logically, the effects of belief bias is decreased.

== Research == In a series of experiments by Evans, Barston and Pollard (1983),<ref name=EvansBarstonPollard1983 /> participants were presented with evaluation task paradigms, containing two premises and a conclusion. The participants were asked to make an evaluation of logical [[Validity (logic)|validity]]. The subjects, however, exhibited a belief bias, evidenced by their tendency to reject valid arguments with unbelievable conclusions, and endorse invalid arguments with believable conclusions. Instead of following directions and assessing logical validity, the subjects based their assessments on personal beliefs.

Consequently, these results demonstrated a greater acceptance of more believable (80%), than unbelievable (33%) conclusions. Participants also illustrated evidence of logical competences and the results determined an increase in acceptance of valid (73%) than invalid (41%). Additionally, there's a small difference between believable and valid (89%) in comparison to unbelievable and invalid (56%) (Evans, Barston & Pollard, 1983; Morley, Evans & Handley, 2004).<ref name=EvansBarstonPollard1983>{{cite journal | last1 = Evans | first1 = J. St. B.T.|author1-link=Jonathan St B. T. Evans| last2 = Barston | first2 = J.L. | last3 = Pollard | first3 = P. | year = 1983 | title = On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning | journal = Memory and Cognition | volume = 11 | issue = 3| pages = 295–306 | doi=10.3758/bf03196976| pmid = 6621345 | doi-access = free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Morely|first=N. J. |author2=Evans, J. St. B. T.|author2-link=Jonathan St B. T. Evans |author3=Handley, S. J. |title=Belief bias & figural bias in syllogistic reasoning|journal=The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology|year=2004|volume=57A|issue=4|pages=666–692|doi=10.1080/02724980343000440|pmid=15204128 |s2cid=9965828 }}</ref>

It has been argued that using more realistic content in [[syllogisms]] can facilitate more normative performance from participants. It has been suggested that the use of more abstract, artificial content will also have a biasing effect on performance. Therefore, more research is required to fully understand how and why belief bias occurs and if there are certain mechanisms that are responsible for such things.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Ding|first1=Daoqun|last2=Chen|first2=Yang|last3=Lai|first3=Ji|last4=Chen|first4=Xiyou|last5=Han|first5=Meng|last6=Zhang|first6=Xiangyi|date=2020-01-23|title=Belief Bias Effect in Older Adults: Roles of Working Memory and Need for Cognition|journal=Frontiers in Psychology|volume=10|page=2940|doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02940|issn=1664-1078|pmc=6990430|pmid=32038362|doi-access=free}}</ref> There is also evidence of clear individual differences in normative responding that are predicted by the response times of participants.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Stupple|first=E.J.N.|author2=L. J. Ball|author3=J. St. B. T. Evans|author3-link=Jonathan St B. T. Evans|author4=E. Kamal-Smith|title=When logic and belief collide: Individual differences in reasoning times support a selective processing model|journal=Journal of Cognitive Psychology|year=2011|volume=23|issue=8|pages=931–941|doi=10.1080/20445911.2011.589381|url=https://derby.openrepository.com/derby/handle/10545/575936|hdl=10545/575936|s2cid=143396820|hdl-access=free|access-date=2018-11-09|archive-date=2019-12-13|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191213023547/https://derby.openrepository.com/derby/handle/10545/575936|url-status=dead|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

A 1989 study by Markovits and Nantel gave participants four reasoning tasks. The results indicated “a significant belief-bias effect” that existed “independently of the subjects' abstract reasoning ability.”<ref name="Markovits & Nantel">{{cite journal|last1=Markovits|first1=H.|last2=Nantel|first2=G.|title=The belief-bias effect in the production and evaluation of logical conclusions.|date=January 1989|pmid=2913452|volume=17|issue=1|journal=Memory and Cognition|pages=11–7|doi=10.3758/bf03199552|doi-access=free}}</ref>

A 2010 study by Donna Torrens examined differences in belief bias among individuals. Torrens found that “the extent of an individual's belief bias effect was unrelated to a number of measures of reasoning competence” but was, instead, related to that person's ability “to generate alternative representations of premises: the more alternatives a person generated, the less likely they were to show a belief bias effect."<ref name="Torrens">{{cite journal|last1=Torrens|first1=Donna|title=Individual Differences and the Belief Bias Effect: Mental Models, Logical Necessity, and Abstract Reasoning|journal=Thinking and Reasoning|date=September 24, 2010|volume=5|issue=1|doi=10.1080/135467899394066|pages=1–28}}</ref>

In a 2010 study, Chad Dube and Caren M. Rotello of the [[University of Massachusetts]] and Evan Heit of the [[University of California, Merced]], showed that “the belief bias effect is simply a response bias effect.”<ref name="Dube, Rotello, and Heit">{{cite journal|last1=Dube|first1=Chad|last2=Rotello|first2=Caren|last3=Heit|first3=Evan|title=The Belief Bias Effect Is Aptly Named: A Reply to Klauer and Kellen (2011)|journal=Psychological Review|volume=118|issue=1|pages=155–163|url=http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Dube_Rotello_Heit_2011.pdf|access-date=6 December 2016|doi=10.1037/a0021774|pmid=21244191|year=2011}}</ref>

In a 2012 study, Adrian P. Banks of the [[University of Surrey]] explained that “belief bias is caused by the believability of a conclusion in working memory which influences its activation level, determining its likelihood of retrieval and therefore its effect on the reasoning process.”<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Banks|first1=Adrian|title=The Influence of Activation Level on Belief Bias in Relational Reasoning|journal=Cognitive Science|date=September 4, 2009|doi=10.1111/cogs.12017|pmid=23294043|url=http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Banks-2013.pdf|access-date=6 December 2016|volume=37|issue=3|pages=544–577|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Michelle Colleen and Elizabeth Hilscher of the [[University of Toronto]] showed in 2014 that belief bias can be affected by the difficulty level and placement of the syllogism in question.<ref name="Hilscher">{{cite web|last1=Hilscher|first1=Michelle|title=Attenuating Belief Bias Effects in Syllogistic Reasoning: The Role of Belief-Content Conflict|url=https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/65668/6/Hilscher_Michelle_C_201406_PhD_thesis.pdf|publisher=University of Toronto|access-date=6 December 2016}}</ref>

==See also== {{div col}} * [[Belief perseverance]] * [[Confirmation bias]] * [[Dual process theory]] * [[Hostile media effect]] * [[List of cognitive biases]] {{div col end}}

== References == {{reflist|2}}

==Further reading== * {{cite journal |doi=10.3758/BF03199552 |last=Markovits |first=H. |author2=G. Nantel |year=1989 |title=The belief-bias effect in the production and evaluation of logical conclusions |journal=Memory and Cognition |volume=17 |issue=1 |pages=11–17 |pmid=2913452|doi-access=free }} * {{cite journal |doi=10.1037/0033-295X.107.4.852 |last=Klauer |first=K.C. |author2=J. Musch|author3=B. Naumer |year=2000 |title=On belief bias in syllogistic reasoning |journal=Psychological Review |volume=107 |issue=4 |pages=852–884 |pmid= 11089409}} * {{cite journal |doi=10.1037/a0019634 |last=Dube |first=C. |author2=C. M. Rotello|author3=E. Heit |year=2010 |title=Assessing the belief bias effect with ROCs: It's a response bias effect |journal=Psychological Review |volume=117 |issue=3 |pages=831–863 |pmid=20658855|citeseerx=10.1.1.717.4988 }} * {{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.009 |last=Trippas|first=D. |author2=M. F. Verde|author3=S. J. Handley |year=2014 |title=Using forced choice to test belief bias in syllogistic reasoning |journal=Cognition |volume= 133|issue=3 |pages=586–600 |pmid=25218460|hdl=10026.1/9936|s2cid=10769512|hdl-access=free }}

==External links== * [http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/belief_bias.htm Changing Minds: Belief Bias]

{{Biases}}

[[Category:Cognitive biases]]