IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bpubpo/v3y2019i01p87-103_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The automatic nature of motivated belief updating

Author

Listed:
  • KAPPES, ANDREAS
  • SHAROT, TALI

Abstract

People's risk estimates often do not align with the evidence available to them. In particular, people tend to discount bad news (such as evidence suggesting their risk of being involved in a car accident is higher than they thought) as compared to good news (evidence suggesting it is lower) – this is known as the belief update bias. It has been assumed that individuals use motivated reasoning to rationalise away unwanted evidence (e.g., “I am a safe driver, thus these statistics do not apply to me†). However, whether reasoning is required to discount bad news has not been tested directly. Here, we restrict cognitive resources using a cognitive load (Experiment 1) and a time restriction manipulation (Experiment 3) and find that while these manipulations diminish learning in general, they do not diminish the bias. Furthermore, we also show that the relative neglect of bad news happens the moment new evidence is presented, not when participants are subsequently prompted to state their belief (Experiment 2). Our findings suggest that reasoning is not required for bad news to be discounted as compared to good news.

Suggested Citation

  • Kappes, Andreas & Sharot, Tali, 2019. "The automatic nature of motivated belief updating," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 87-103, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:3:y:2019:i:01:p:87-103_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2398063X17000112/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Filip Gesiarz & Donal Cahill & Tali Sharot, 2019. "Evidence accumulation is biased by motivation: A computational account," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-15, June.
    2. Jan Engelmann & Maël Lebreton & Peter Schwardmann & Joël van der Weele & Li-Ang Chang, 2019. "Anticipatory Anxiety and Wishful Thinking," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-042/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    3. Josue Garcia-Arch & Itxaso Barberia & Javier Rodríguez-Ferreiro & Lluís Fuentemilla, 2022. "Authority Brings Responsibility: Feedback from Experts Promotes an Overweighting of Health-Related Pseudoscientific Beliefs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-11, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:3:y:2019:i:01:p:87-103_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bpp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.