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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |