Belief Bias Effect

From this point of view, reasoning that depends on the validity of the inference, rather than on logical analysis, allows you to quickly and often get useful results based on pre-existing knowledge about the world, and not on the logical validity of the assumption. In addition, reasoning ability sometimes predicts a greater likelihood of judging arguments and evidence in accordance with previous beliefs, rather than less (e.g., Shoots-Reinhard et al., 2021). [Sources: 1, 8]

Tools designed to measure belief bias often ask subjects to evaluate arguments with and without logical certainty. In particular, the validity of the argument and the credibility of its conclusion are two important aspects of arguments that affect the bias of people’s beliefs, especially in the context of syllogistic reasoning. When it comes to these factors, consistency / inconsistency between the credibility of an argument and its credibility (sometimes called consistency / inconsistency) can also affect people’s belief bias. [Sources: 6, 8]

Thus, the literature on reasoning bias indicates that both novices and relevant experts assess the strength of arguments and are influenced by both the validity of the conclusions and the validity of the premises. If, as predicted by a belief bias, the validity of an argument’s inference affects readers’ judgments on the subject, then a belief bias may pose a problem in the development of adaptive thinking in statistics. To achieve the learning goal of developing students’ statistical thinking skills, the statistical education community must consider factors such as belief bias, which influence how students make decisions, justify data, and respond to statistical inferences. [Sources: 10]

When people tend to seek information to support their beliefs/hypotheses, confirmation bias occurs, but this bias can be reduced by considering alternative hypotheses and their consequences. Misunderstandings This type of prejudice explains that people interpret evidence based on existing beliefs, and usually assessing solid evidence is different from the evidence that refutes their prejudice. In a 2012 study, Adrian P. Banks of the University of Surrey explained: “Belief bias is caused by the effectiveness of reasoning in working memory. It affects the level of activation and determines the likelihood of recovery, thereby affecting reasoning. … In addition to the syllogism that is mainly used to test formal reasoning, evidence of belief bias also appears in informal reasoning research, for example, when people are asked to rate the strength of the argument, the rationale or reliability of the argument Not really. It must be effective. [Sources: 2, 5, 6]

Researchers usually use syllogism reasoning tasks to investigate belief bias by manipulating the validity and logical validity of reasoning (Dube et al., 2010; Klauer and Kellen, 2011; Trippas et al., 2013). For content-neutral syllogisms, the results are consistent with research on belief distortions; however, for syllogisms with negative emotional content, participants are more likely to use valid inferences to reason about invalid syllogisms instead of automatically thinking they are valid . [Sources: 2, 11]

The experimental results reflect that when subjects were given detailed instructions to reason logically, the effect of belief bias was reduced. The result was that the pressure group had a higher percentage of incorrect answers than the other; they concluded that this was the result of a shift in thinking from logicians to believers. However, the subjects displayed a belief bias, as evidenced by their tendency to reject valid arguments with incredible conclusions and support false arguments with valid inferences. However, when the conclusion drawn from the statistics was inconsistent with the previous opinion, the subjects tended to be less confident in the statistics. [Sources: 2, 10]

The better people are at testing to make them rely on wrong ideas, the more likely they are to correctly assess the accuracy of fake news, and even if the headlines match the headlines, the less likely they are to share fake news. Their own guerrilla beliefs (Pennycook & Rand 2019). In addition, in an empirical study of graduate students, Koehler (1993) found that his subjects tended to give more favorable ratings to research reports that reached conclusions they agreed with (referred to as results “consistent with beliefs”). An intermediary analysis using the bootstrap program showed that light/low tar smokers have a direct impact on their belief that their cigarettes are less harmful (b = 0.24, 95% correct bootstrap bias, CI 0.13 to 0.34, p <0.001) and indirect The effect Because they believe their cigarettes are smoother, the effect of this effect is significant (b = 0.32, 95% CI corrected lead deviation from 0.28 to 0, 37, p <0.001), indicating that the mediation is partial. These results are similar to previous studies by Stupple et al. [Sources: 1, 3, 4, 10]

In addition, participants were most likely informed that the English letter “A” refers to a meaningless term that may lead to simpler syllogistic reasoning for the elderly in this study than for those in previous studies. We found that previous beliefs made reasoning more difficult for older people than for younger people in incompatible settings, and increased logical reasoning more significantly for older people than for younger people in congruent settings. First, while we presented the effect of age on belief bias in syllogistic reasoning, we did not fully match the educational attainment of older and younger adults. Based on the theories of the dual process, older people are less likely to use analytical strategies and are more easily influenced by beliefs. [Sources: 3, 11]

In addition, the influence of age on reasoning is largely due to bias caused by the conflict between faith and logic. In addition, when it comes to the structure of arguments, an associated bias that can affect a belief bias is a figurative bias, that is, a tendency to be influenced by the order in which information is presented in the premises of an argument when seeking a solution to a problem. the problem of syllogistic reasoning. To minimize this dissonance, people adjust to confirmation bias by avoiding information that contradicts their beliefs and looking for evidence to support their beliefs. Confirmation bias is a psychological effect in which, in the context of forming an opinion, an individual advocating a particular opinion tends to mistakenly perceive new incoming information as supporting his current belief. [Sources: 4, 5, 6, 11]

Home messages. Confirmation bias is the tendency of people to give preference to information that corroborates their existing beliefs or assumptions. Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek information that supports rather than reject it as bias, usually interpreting evidence to validate existing beliefs by rejecting or ignoring any conflicting evidence (American Psychological Association). People are prone to confirmation bias in order to protect their self-worth (to know that their beliefs are correct). Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek, interpret, and remember information based on one’s beliefs, while persistence is a state in which a person refuses to change their beliefs, even if their beliefs may be denial. [Sources: 5, 12]

From a legal point of view, this belief becomes a prejudice when one cannot deal with it effectively to focus on the facts at hand and the part of the case. However, when the validity of the inference contradicts the belief, people are unlikely to agree with the argument, and the belief will interfere with syllogistic reasoning (Dube et al., 2010; Trippas et al., 2013, 2018). In syllogism reasoning, people do not completely follow logical principles, and the reasoning process is often affected by beliefs (Evans et al., 1983, 2001). [Sources: 11, 12]


— Slimane Zouggari


##### Sources #####