Belief Change

Beliefs can be understood, among other ways, as brain activities that are observable via neuroimaging.

Neuroscientists use techniques like EEGs and fMRIs in their laboratories to observe how it all works, but the research can feel inaccessible and disconnected from everyday experience. 

(At least, that’s what I’m saying because I can't understand much of it.) 

While marketers are starting to use neurometrics to understand how campaigns and experiences work, behavioral and econometric measurements are still much more common - and valued. 

So I am always interested when a neuroscience study comes into view that is relatable. 

Like this one, which investigates how we maintain our beliefs in the face of counterevidence.

These introductory paragraphs put it so clearly: 

It is well known that people often resist changing their beliefs when directly challenged, especially when these beliefs are central to their identity1,2,3,4,5,6. In some cases, exposure to counterevidence may even increase a person’s confidence that his or her cherished beliefs are true7,8. Although neuroscientists have begun to study some of the social aspects of persuasion9 and motivated reasoning10, little research is aimed directly at understanding the neural systems involved in protecting our most strongly held beliefs against counterevidence.

One model of belief maintenance holds that when confronted with counterevidence, people experience negative emotions borne of conflict between the perceived importance of their existing beliefs and the uncertainty created by the new information11,12,13,14. In an effort to reduce these negative emotions, people may begin to think in ways that minimize the impact of the challenging evidence: discounting its source, forming counterarguments, socially validating their original attitude, or selectively avoiding the new information15. The degree to which such rationalization occurs depends upon several factors, but the personal significance of the challenged belief appears to be crucial. Specifically, beliefs that relate to one’s social identity are likely to be more difficult to change16,17,18,19.

It rings so true that our beliefs are protected from change by negative emotions and fear of social loss that are “borne of conflict” between existing and new information.

And that there is probably some evolutionary benefit in not being open to fast/easy change, especially for the most strongly-held beliefs.

But this condition should also be seen as a bug in our code if it prevents us from updating our models of the world when new data comes in. 

So?

Marketing is a business of belief formation and maintenance. 

And the part I am involved with - the production and delivery of campaigns and experiences - is nothing if not the rational, logical, efficient part. 

The study reminds me that "big emotion" in storytelling, and social representation in casting are also essential to effectiveness. 

Because changing beliefs involves not only evidence and reason, but identity and emotions.

As the poet said "what the heart knows today the head will understand tomorrow." 

You can read the full study "Neural Correlates of Maintaining One’s Political Beliefs in the Face of Counterevidence" by Jonas Kaplan, Sarah Gimbel and Sam Harris, here - https://www.nature.com/articles/srep39589