In a new theory, researchers combine internal and external processes to understand why we believe what we believe.
The beliefs we hold arise from a complex interplay between our inner and outer lives—between what we ourselves believe, the cognitive processes at the individual level, and our relationships with others, i.e., what others believe. Together, these shape our worldviews and influence how willing we are to change those beliefs when we encounter new information.
In the past, these two levels were mostly studied in isolation: Psychologists modeled cognitive processes at the individual level, while scientists from fields like computational social science and statistical physics tried to understand the spread and change of beliefs within a society.
THE THEORY OF BELIEF NETWORKS
“With the Theory of Belief Networks, we combine the dynamics of individual and social beliefs for the first time, and also take into account how individuals perceive the beliefs of those around them,” explain Mirta Galesic and Henrik Olsson from the Complexity Science Hub and the Santa Fe Institute. This theory, which they developed together with Jonas Dalege from the University of Amsterdam, was recently published in Psychological Review.
The Theory of Belief Networks “is the first to explicitly differentiate between personal, social, and external dissonances, or inconsistencies,” the authors write. “To fully understand when and why individuals change their beliefs, we need to understand how these dissonances together lead to various social phenomena.”
A TOOL AGAINST POLARIZATION AND MORE
Based on their theory, the researchers developed a model, which they validated in two large surveys. This model could be applied to a wide range of real-world problems. For instance, it might offer new tools to combat the increasing polarization in the world. “To understand polarization and do something about it, we need to look beyond just individual or social answers,” says Dalege. “Partial answers can lead to dangerous political actions. You might end up causing the opposite of what you intend.”
THREE ASSUMPTIONS
The Theory of Belief Networks is based on three key assumptions: First, the researchers assume that beliefs can be represented as two interacting classes of networks: internal and external. The internal network consists of various interconnected beliefs—for example, a person’s beliefs about vaccines might be linked to their beliefs about science, economics, and religion. The external network describes how a person’s social beliefs relate to the beliefs of others and vice versa.
Second, people seek to minimize dissonance in their beliefs at the personal, social, and external levels. Personal dissonance would mean that someone holds two contradictory beliefs—for instance, believing that vaccines are effective but also unsafe. Social dissonance arises when a person’s beliefs conflict with what they think the people around them believe. External dissonance occurs when a person’s social beliefs—their perceptions of others—do not align with the actual beliefs of those others.
The third assumption is that the degree of dissonance a person feels depends on how much attention they pay to inconsistencies in their beliefs. This can vary greatly depending on personal and cultural preferences, as well as the topic.
QUANTITATIVE MODEL
To create the quantitative model of their theory, the authors used an analogy from statistical physics. “In this case, we transfer psychological concepts to concepts in statistical physics,” Olsson explains. “Potential dissonance plays the role of energy, and attention plays the role of temperature. This allows us to model the complex dynamics of belief networks using established formulas from statistical physics.”
ANALOGIES AND THEIR LIMITS
Researchers studying the dynamics of beliefs often use analogies—concepts and methods from other fields—to understand and model our complex cognitive and social systems. However, these analogies must be carefully considered, as Olsson and Galesic addressed in another recent research piece. “We need to seriously review and question such analogies,” Galesic emphasizes. “All analogies can be useful, but they will all eventually reach their limits. The trick is knowing when an analogy has been stretched too far,” the researcher explains. For this reason, they propose guidelines for using analogies in developing models of belief dynamics.
An analogy is a comparison that aims to explain the relationship between objects in one, typically less well-understood domain by the relationship between objects in another, typically better-understood domain.
For example, in another CSH study researchers modeled the formation of social groups using an example from physics: the self-organization of particles with spin.
UNDERSTANDING AND REFLECTING
The newly published Theory of Belief Networks allows researchers to model the interplay between individuals and their surroundings, between perceived and actual beliefs, and to account for how beliefs change when we pay attention to different parts of our belief system.
“Sometimes, we pay more attention to our personal dissonance and want to make sure our beliefs align with our own values,” Galesic explains. “Other times, when we are in a socially sensitive situation, for example, we might focus more on the dissonance between our own beliefs and those of others. In such situations, we might change our beliefs to align with perceived social pressure.”
In the future, Galesic and Olsson aim to explore what makes our belief networks resilient to so-called ‘shocks’ like disinformation, empowering people to understand and reflect on these mechanisms.
About the study
The study “Networks of Beliefs: An Integrative Theory of Individual- and Social-Level Belief Dynamics,” by Jonas Dalege, Mirta Galesic, and Henrik Olsson, was published in Psychological Review.
