Exploring the Mechanisms that Allow Incompatible Beliefs to Coexist in the Cognitive System.

Abstract

Despite assumptions that people strive for consistency between their beliefs, endorsement of mutually incompatible ones is not rare - a tendency we have previously labelled doublethink, by borrowing from Orwell. In an attempt to understand the nature of doublethink and the underlying mechanism that enables incompatible beliefs to coexist, we conducted two preregistered studies (total N = 691). To do so, in Study 1, we first explored how doublethink relates to (1) thinking styles (rational/intuitive, actively open-minded thinking, and need for cognitive closure), (2) a set of irrational beliefs (magical health, conspiratorial, superstitious, and paranormal beliefs) and (3) its predictiveness for questionable health practices (non-adherence to medical recommendations and use of traditional, complementary and alternative medicine). We then additionally expanded the set of health behaviors in Study 2, and related doublethink to trust in two epistemic authorities - science and the wisdom of the common man. Finally, in both studies, we explored whether those prone to inconsistent beliefs are also more likely to simultaneously rely on conventional and alternative medicine, despite their apparent incompatibility. While doublethink was positively related to need for cognitive closure and different irrational beliefs that easily incorporate contradictions, as well as negatively to actively open-minded thinking, we did not find it to be predictive of the use of non-evidence-based medicine nor of its simultaneous use with official medicine. It seems that this novel construct can be best understood as a feature of the cognitive system that allows incompatible claims to enter it. However, once beliefs are within the system, they are compartmentalized, without any cross-referencing between them. This is further reflected in non-evidence-based beliefs persisting within the belief system, irrespective of their content.