When dealing with the often polarizing information overload during the pandemic, it is tempting to think that you will come up with the one argument that will change someone's mind while talking at a store, when commenting on social media or during any other interaction.
But the mind doesn't work that straightforwardly, said a Grand Valley expert who has studied how beliefs affect the way people process information.
Michael Wolfe, professor and chair of psychology, said his research has shown that people with certain beliefs about an issue generally understand it, so presenting more facts alone tends not to sway them.
A person's response to consuming information that is inconsistent with their beliefs is part of a complex web that also includes social identities, value systems, personal motivations and more, said Wolfe, who has collaborated on this research with fellow GVSU faculty members Todd Williams and Christopher Kurby.
"What we have found is that people's ability to judge whether an argument is sound or not is pretty strongly biased by our beliefs," Wolfe said.
That is why in the cacophony of debate and rhetoric surrounding the pandemic — as well as other hot-button issues — finding "just the right sentence" to change someone's mind is elusive, Wolfe said.
Another element is also at play, Wolfe said: "The vast majority of the time, we don’t use reasoning to reach a conclusion. We reach a conclusion first and reasoning is done for the sake of reinforcing the conclusion we already have."
Which brings us to the issue that has caused widespread discord: masks.
Once again, Wolfe points out that people, in general, understand the issues surrounding use of face coverings during the pandemic. The divisiveness of the practice has roots in the fact that mask-wearing has in part become tied to social identities and the values people hold, he said.
Some say they take will act on recommendations from scientists and wear masks, while others say they value personal liberty and will not allow the government to tell them what to do, Wolfe said. As a consequence, both those who comply and resist try to find information to justify their beliefs as they establish their behavior.
In addition, people often inherently want to feel OK with themselves and their decisions, Wolfe said.
Another factor is how someone's social group views the issue, Wolfe noted. "Group identity is important. For instance, if most in my group are not wearing masks, my decision to wear a mask is not solely tied to evidence about masks. If I start wearing masks, I could jeopardize my standing in the group," he said.
Indeed, virtue signaling to members of a group, no matter the side of an issue, is common — and nowhere is it more common than on social media. Wolfe said the platform holds limited opportunities for constructive interaction on issues ranging from the pandemic to vaccinations to gun control.
"If you want to give a persuasive message that has even a slim chance of convincing someone of something, rarely is it done right on social media," Wolfe said. "So often in social media there seems to be an attempt at persuasion that involves bludgeoning people with facts and shaming, and neither of those really has any chance at being effective."
What is helpful? Wolfe said one way to keep the lines of communication open is an elaborate conversation that acknowledges the underlying values fueling beliefs.
Of course, some will change beliefs. And while that process is complicated, Wolfe said his research with colleagues shows another peculiarity of the mind when it happens.
"When people do change beliefs, we curiously tend to be unaware of these changes," Wolfe said. "At any moment we tend to think that what we believe now is what we’ve always thought."
Sign up and receive the latest Grand Valley headlines delivered to your email inbox each morning.
