Why people do or do not change their beliefs has been a long-standing puzzle. Sometimes people hold onto false beliefs despite ample contradictory evidence; sometimes they change their beliefs without sufficient reason. Here, we propose that the utility of a belief is derived from the potential outcomes associated with holding it. Outcomes can be internal (e.g., positive/negative feelings) or external (e.g., material gain/loss), and only some are dependent on belief accuracy. Belief change can then be understood as an economic transaction in which the multidimensional utility of the old belief is compared against that of the new belief. Change will occur when potential outcomes alter across attributes, for example because of changing environments or when certain outcomes are made more or less salient.
AllenM.FrankD.SchwarzkopfD. S.FardoF.WinstonJ. S.HauserT. U.ReesG. (2016). Unexpected arousal modulates the influence of sensory noise on confidence. eLife, 5, Article e18103.
2.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235.
3.
ArmorD. A.TaylorS. E. (2002). When predictions fail: The dilemma of unrealistic optimism. In GilovichT.GriffinD.KahnemanD. (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 334–347). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098.021
4.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
5.
BénabouR.TiroleJ. (2002). Self-confidence and personal motivation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 871–915.
6.
BénabouR.TiroleJ. (2016). Mindful economics: The production, consumption, and value of beliefs. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(3), 141–164.
7.
BlanchardT. C.HaydenB. Y.Bromberg-MartinE. S. (2015). Orbitofrontal cortex uses distinct codes for different choice attributes in decisions motivated by curiosity. Neuron, 85(3), 602–614.
8.
Bromberg-MartinE. S.SharotT. (2020). The value of beliefs. Neuron, 106(4), 561–565.
9.
BrunnermeierM. K.ParkerJ. A. (2005). Optimal expectations. American Economic Review, 95(4), 1092–1118.
10.
BurnsD. (2014). How far we have come in the last 50 years in smoking attitudes and actions. Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 11(2), 224–226.
11.
BusemeyerJ. R.GluthS.RieskampJ.TurnerB. M. (2019). Cognitive and neural bases of multi-attribute, multi-alternative, value-based decisions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(3), 251–263.
12.
CarpenterJ.ShermanM. T.KievitR. A.SethA. K.LauH.FlemingS. M. (2019). Domain-general enhancements of metacognitive ability through adaptive training. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(1), 51–64.
13.
ChambonV.ThéroH.VidalM.VandendriesscheH.HaggardP.PalminteriS. (2020). Information about action outcomes differentially affects learning from self-determined versus imposed choices. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(10), 1067–1079.
14.
CharpentierC. J.De NeveJ. E.LiX.RoiserJ. P.SharotT. (2016). Models of affective decision making: How do feelings predict choice?Psychological Science, 27(6), 763–775.
15.
De MartinoB.FlemingS. M.GarrettN.DolanR. J. (2013). Confidence in value-based choice. Nature Neuroscience, 16(1), 105–110.
16.
DesenderK.BoldtA.YeungN. (2018). Subjective confidence predicts information seeking in decision making. Psychological Science, 29(5), 761–778.
17.
DesenderK.MurphyP.BoldtA.VergutsT.YeungN. (2019). A postdecisional neural marker of confidence predicts information-seeking in decision-making. The Journal of Neuroscience, 39(17), 3309–3319.
18.
DutraL. M.GranaR.GlantzS. A. (2017). Philip Morris research on precursors to the modern e-cigarette since 1990. Tobacco Control, 26(e2), e97–e105.
19.
EilD.RaoJ. M. (2011). The good news-bad news effect: Asymmetric processing of objective information about yourself. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 3(2), 114–138.
20.
ErnstM. O.BanksM. S. (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature, 415(6870), 429–433.
21.
FalkE.ScholzC. (2018). Persuasion, influence, and value: Perspectives from communication and social neuroscience. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 329–356.
FlemingS. M.Van Der PuttenE. J.DawN. D. (2018). Neural mediators of changes of mind about perceptual decisions. Nature Neuroscience, 21(4), 617–624.
25.
FolkeT.JacobsenC.FlemingS. M.De MartinoB. (2016). Explicit representation of confidence informs future value-based decisions. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), Article 0002. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0002
26.
GarrettN.González-GarzónA. M.FoulkesL.LevitaL.SharotT. (2018). Updating beliefs under perceived threat. The Journal of Neuroscience, 38(36), 7901–7911.
27.
GershmanS. J. (2019). Uncertainty and exploration. Decision, 6(3), 277.
28.
GlaeserE.SunsteinC. R. (2014). Does more speech correct falsehoods?The Journal of Legal Studies, 43(1), 65–93.
29.
GlobigL. K.WitteK.FengG.SharotT. (2021). Under threat, weaker evidence is required to reach undesirable conclusions. The Journal of Neuroscience, 41(30), 6502–6510.
30.
GoschkeT. (1997). Implicit learning and unconscious knowledge: Mental representation, computational mechanisms, and brain structures. In LambertsK.ShanksD. R. (Eds.), Knowledge, concepts and categories (pp. 247–333). The MIT Press.
GreenhalghT.SchmidM. B.CzypionkaT.BasslerD.GruerL. (2020). Face masks for the public during the covid-19 crisis. The BMJ, 369, Article m1435. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1435
33.
GrevenC. U.HarlaarN.KovasY.Chamorro-PremuzicT.PlominR. (2009). More than just IQ: School achievement is predicted by self-perceived abilities—But for genetic rather than environmental reasons. Psychological Science, 20(6), 753–762.
34.
HornikR. C.NiederdeppeJ. (2008). Information scanning. In DonsbachW. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of communication (pp. 2257–2261). Wiley-Blackwell.
35.
KahanD. M. (2017). Misconceptions, misinformation, and the logic of identity-protective cognition. Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper Series No. 164, Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 605, Yale Law & Economics Research Paper No. 575. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2973067
36.
KappesA.HarveyA. H.LohrenzT.MontagueP. R.SharotT. (2020). Confirmation bias in the utilization of others’ opinion strength. Nature Neuroscience, 23(1), 130–137.
37.
KappesA.SharotT. (2019). The automatic nature of motivated belief updating. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(1), 87–103.
38.
KlaymanJ.HaY. W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94(2), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.211
LebretonM.AbitbolR.DaunizeauJ.PessiglioneM. (2015). Automatic integration of confidence in the brain valuation signal. Nature Neuroscience, 18(8), 1159–1167.
41.
LebretonM.LangdonS.SliekerM. J.NooitgedachtJ. S.GoudriaanA. E.DenysD.van HolstR. J.LuigjesJ. (2018). Two sides of the same coin: Monetary incentives concurrently improve and bias confidence judgments. Science Advances, 4(5), Article eaaq0668. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaq0668
42.
LeeD.DaunizeauJ. (2020). Choosing what we like vs liking what we choose: How choice-induced preference change might actually be instrumental to decision-making. PLOS ONE, 15(5), Article e0231081.
43.
LefebvreG.LebretonM.MeynielF.Bourgeois-GirondeS.PalminteriS. (2017). Behavioural and neural characterization of optimistic reinforcement learning. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(4), Article 0067. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0067
44.
LoewensteinG. (2006). The pleasures and pains of information. Science, 312(5774), 704–706.
45.
LoewensteinG.MolnarA. (2018). The renaissance of belief-based utility in economics. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(3), 166–167.
46.
MaierS. U.BeharelleA. R.PolaníaR.RuffC. C.HareT. A. (2020). Dissociable mechanisms govern when and how strongly reward attributes affect decisions. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(9), 949–963.
47.
MetcalfeJ. (2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 159–163.
MeynielF.SchluneggerD.DehaeneS. (2015). The sense of confidence during probabilistic learning: A normative account. PLOS Computational Biology, 11(6), Article 1004305. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004305
50.
MobiusM. M.NiederleM.NiehausP.RosenblatT. S. (2011). Managing self-confidence: Theory and experimental evidence (No. w17014). National Bureau of Economic Research.
51.
MooreD. A.SmallD. A. (2008). When it is rational for the majority to believe that they are better than average. In KruegerJ. I. (Ed.), Rationality and social responsibility: Essays in honor of Robyn Mason Dawes (pp. 141–174). Routledge.
52.
MoutsianaC.CharpentierC. J.GarrettN.CohenM. X.SharotT. (2015). Human frontal–subcortical circuit and asymmetric belief updating. The Journal of Neuroscience, 35(42), 14077–14085.
53.
NoguchiT.StewartN. (2018). Multialternative decision by sampling: A model of decision making constrained by process data. Psychological Review, 125(4), 512–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000102
54.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ.RicheyS.FreedG. L. (2014). Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics, 133(4), e835–e842.
55.
OsterE.ShoulsonI.DorseyE. (2013). Optimal expectations and limited medical testing: Evidence from Huntington disease. American Economic Review, 103(2), 804–830.
56.
PennycookG.EpsteinZ.MoslehM.ArecharA. A.EcklesD.RandD. G. (2021). Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature, 592(7855), 590–595.
57.
PessiglioneM.PetrovicP.DaunizeauJ.PalminteriS.DolanR. J.FrithC. D. (2008). Subliminal instrumental conditioning demonstrated in the human brain. Neuron, 59(4), 561–567.
PougetA.DrugowitschJ.KepecsA. (2016). Confidence and certainty: Distinct probabilistic quantities for different goals. Nature Neuroscience, 19(3), 366–374.
60.
Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages and Advertisements, 21 C.F.R § 1141 (2011).
61.
RollwageM.FlemingS. M. (2021). Confirmation bias is adaptive when coupled with efficient metacognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 376(1822), Article 20200131. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0131
62.
RollwageM.LoosenA.HauserT. U.MoranR.DolanR. J.FlemingS. M. (2020). Confidence drives a neural confirmation bias. Nature Communications, 11(1), Article 2634. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16278-6
63.
RutledgeR. B.SkandaliN.DayanP.DolanR. J. (2014). A computational and neural model of momentary subjective well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 111(33), 12252–12257.
64.
SamuelsonP. (1983). The keynes centenary. The Economist, 287, 19–21.
65.
SchulzE.GershmanS. J. (2019). The algorithmic architecture of exploration in the human brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 55, 7–14.
SchulzL.RollwageM.DolanR. J.FlemingS. M. (2020). Dogmatism manifests in lowered information search under uncertainty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 117(49), 31527–31534.
68.
SharotT.KornC. W.DolanR. J. (2011). How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality. Nature Neuroscience, 14(11), 1475–1479.
69.
SharotT.SunsteinC. R. (2020). How people decide what they want to know. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(1), 14–19.
70.
SharotT.VelasquezC. M.DolanR. J. (2010). Do decisions shape preference? Evidence from blind choice. Psychological Science, 21(9), 1231–1235.
71.
Stephens-DavidowitzS.(2017). Everybody lies: Big data, new data, and what the internet can tell us about who we really are. HarperCollins.
72.
SunsteinC. R. (2019). Ruining popcorn? The welfare effects of information. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 58(2), 121–142.
TannenbaumM. B.HeplerJ.ZimmermanR. S.SaulL.JacobsS.WilsonK.AlbarracínD. (2015). Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1178–1204.
75.
TappinB. M.Van Der LeerL.McKayR. T. (2017). The heart trumps the head: Desirability bias in political belief revision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(8), 1143–1149. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000298
76.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
77.
Van BavelJ. J.HarrisE. A.PärnametsP.RathjeS.DoellK.TuckerJ. A. (2020). Political psychology in the digital (mis) information age: A model of news belief and sharing. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/u5yts
78.
Van BavelJ. J.SterniskoA.HarrisE. A.RobertsonC. (2019). The social function of rationalization: An identity perspective. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6nu3e
