Cargando…

Metacognitive Failure as a Feature of Those Holding Radical Beliefs

Widening polarization about political, religious, and scientific issues threatens open societies, leading to entrenchment of beliefs, reduced mutual understanding, and a pervasive negativity surrounding the very idea of consensus [1, 2]. Such radicalization has been linked to systematic differences...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rollwage, Max, Dolan, Raymond J., Fleming, Stephen M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cell Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6303190/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30562522
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.10.053
_version_ 1783382136662786048
author Rollwage, Max
Dolan, Raymond J.
Fleming, Stephen M.
author_facet Rollwage, Max
Dolan, Raymond J.
Fleming, Stephen M.
author_sort Rollwage, Max
collection PubMed
description Widening polarization about political, religious, and scientific issues threatens open societies, leading to entrenchment of beliefs, reduced mutual understanding, and a pervasive negativity surrounding the very idea of consensus [1, 2]. Such radicalization has been linked to systematic differences in the certainty with which people adhere to particular beliefs [3, 4, 5, 6]. However, the drivers of unjustified certainty in radicals are rarely considered from the perspective of models of metacognition, and it remains unknown whether radicals show alterations in confidence bias (a tendency to publicly espouse higher confidence), metacognitive sensitivity (insight into the correctness of one’s beliefs), or both [7]. Within two independent general population samples (n = 381 and n = 417), here we show that individuals holding radical beliefs (as measured by questionnaires about political attitudes) display a specific impairment in metacognitive sensitivity about low-level perceptual discrimination judgments. Specifically, more radical participants displayed less insight into the correctness of their choices and reduced updating of their confidence when presented with post-decision evidence. Our use of a simple perceptual decision task enables us to rule out effects of previous knowledge, task performance, and motivational factors underpinning differences in metacognition. Instead, our findings highlight a generic resistance to recognizing and revising incorrect beliefs as a potential driver of radicalization.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6303190
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Cell Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63031902018-12-27 Metacognitive Failure as a Feature of Those Holding Radical Beliefs Rollwage, Max Dolan, Raymond J. Fleming, Stephen M. Curr Biol Article Widening polarization about political, religious, and scientific issues threatens open societies, leading to entrenchment of beliefs, reduced mutual understanding, and a pervasive negativity surrounding the very idea of consensus [1, 2]. Such radicalization has been linked to systematic differences in the certainty with which people adhere to particular beliefs [3, 4, 5, 6]. However, the drivers of unjustified certainty in radicals are rarely considered from the perspective of models of metacognition, and it remains unknown whether radicals show alterations in confidence bias (a tendency to publicly espouse higher confidence), metacognitive sensitivity (insight into the correctness of one’s beliefs), or both [7]. Within two independent general population samples (n = 381 and n = 417), here we show that individuals holding radical beliefs (as measured by questionnaires about political attitudes) display a specific impairment in metacognitive sensitivity about low-level perceptual discrimination judgments. Specifically, more radical participants displayed less insight into the correctness of their choices and reduced updating of their confidence when presented with post-decision evidence. Our use of a simple perceptual decision task enables us to rule out effects of previous knowledge, task performance, and motivational factors underpinning differences in metacognition. Instead, our findings highlight a generic resistance to recognizing and revising incorrect beliefs as a potential driver of radicalization. Cell Press 2018-12-17 /pmc/articles/PMC6303190/ /pubmed/30562522 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.10.053 Text en © 2018 The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Rollwage, Max
Dolan, Raymond J.
Fleming, Stephen M.
Metacognitive Failure as a Feature of Those Holding Radical Beliefs
title Metacognitive Failure as a Feature of Those Holding Radical Beliefs
title_full Metacognitive Failure as a Feature of Those Holding Radical Beliefs
title_fullStr Metacognitive Failure as a Feature of Those Holding Radical Beliefs
title_full_unstemmed Metacognitive Failure as a Feature of Those Holding Radical Beliefs
title_short Metacognitive Failure as a Feature of Those Holding Radical Beliefs
title_sort metacognitive failure as a feature of those holding radical beliefs
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6303190/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30562522
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.10.053
work_keys_str_mv AT rollwagemax metacognitivefailureasafeatureofthoseholdingradicalbeliefs
AT dolanraymondj metacognitivefailureasafeatureofthoseholdingradicalbeliefs
AT flemingstephenm metacognitivefailureasafeatureofthoseholdingradicalbeliefs