How Belief Networks Predict Opinion Change on Science
Author: Santa Fe Institute
Published: 2022/08/21 - Updated: 2026/01/22
Publication Details: Peer-Reviewed, Informative
Category Topic: Medical Research - Related Publications
Page Content: Synopsis - Introduction - Main - Insights, Updates
Synopsis: This peer-reviewed research published in Science Advances presents a cognitive network framework that successfully predicts whether individuals will shift their opinions when presented with evidence-based information about controversial scientific topics. The study, conducted by researchers at the Santa Fe Institute, analyzed nearly 1,000 participants who held skeptical views about genetically modified foods and childhood vaccines, revealing that people experiencing higher levels of cognitive dissonance from conflicting beliefs were more likely to change their positions - though not always in the intended direction. This research holds particular value for healthcare providers, public health communicators, and advocacy organizations working with diverse populations, including people with disabilities and older adults, who may benefit from more effective science communication strategies. The framework's ability to map interconnected moral, social, and factual beliefs offers practical insights into why some individuals remain resistant to evidence while others prove more receptive to new information - Disabled World (DW).
- Definition: Belief Change
Belief change, or belief revision, is changing beliefs to consider a new piece of information. The logical formalization of belief revision is researched in philosophy, databases, and artificial intelligence to design rational agents. It is changing beliefs to consider a new piece of information. The logical formalization of belief revision is researched in philosophy, in databases, and in artificial intelligence to design rational agents.
In general, there are two kinds of belief changes:
- Revision: Both the old beliefs and the new information refer to the same situation; an inconsistency between the new and old information is explained by the possibility of old information being less reliable than the new one; revision is the process of inserting the new information into the set of old beliefs without generating an inconsistency.
- Update: The new information is about the situation at present, while the old beliefs refer to the past; the update is the operation of changing the old beliefs to take into account the change.
Introduction
Using a Cognitive Network Model of Moral and Social Beliefs to Explain Belief Change
A new predictive network model could help determine which people will change their minds about contentious scientific issues when presented with evidence-based information.
A study in Science Advances presents a framework to accurately predict if a person will change their opinion about a certain topic. The approach estimates the amount of dissonance or mental discomfort a person has from holding conflicting beliefs about a topic.
Main Content
Santa Fe Institute Postdoctoral Fellows Jonas Dalege and Tamara van der Does built on previous efforts to model belief change by integrating both moral and social beliefs into a statistical physics framework of 20 interacting beliefs.
They then used this cognitive network model to predict how the beliefs of a group of nearly 1,000 people, who were at least somewhat skeptical about the efficacy of genetically modified foods and childhood vaccines, would change as the result of an educational intervention.
Study participants were shown a message about the scientific consensus on genetic modification and vaccines. Those who began the study with a lot of dissonance in their interwoven network of beliefs were more likely to change their beliefs after viewing the messaging, but not necessarily in accordance with the message. On the other hand, people with little dissonance showed little change following the intervention.
"For example, if you believe that scientists are inherently trustworthy, but your family and friends tell you that vaccines are unsafe, this is going to create some dissonance in your mind," van der Does says. "We found that if you were already kind of anti-GM foods or vaccines, to begin with, you would move more towards that direction when presented with new information even if that wasn't the intention of the intervention."
While still in an early stage, the research could ultimately have important implications for communicating scientific, evidence-based information to the public.
"On the one hand, you might want to target people who have some dissonance in their beliefs, but at the same time, this also creates some danger that they will reduce their dissonance in a way that you didn't want them to," Dalege says. "Moving forward, we want to expand this research to see if we can learn more about why people take certain paths to reduce their dissonance."
Insights, Analysis, and Developments
Editorial Note: The implications of this belief network research extend well beyond academic interest, touching the very foundation of how we communicate vital health information to vulnerable populations. When public health campaigns targeting vaccine hesitancy or treatment skepticism fail to consider the complex web of social, moral, and factual beliefs individuals hold, they risk not only missing their mark but potentially reinforcing the very misconceptions they aim to dispel. What makes this study particularly valuable is its honest acknowledgment that cognitive dissonance can be a double-edged sword - while it may signal openness to change, it doesn't guarantee movement in any particular direction. For those working to improve health outcomes among people with disabilities, older adults, and other medically vulnerable groups, this research suggests that effective communication requires more than just presenting facts; it demands understanding the entire landscape of beliefs that shape how new information gets received, processed, and ultimately accepted or rejected - Disabled World (DW).Attribution/Source(s): This peer reviewed publication was selected for publishing by the editors of Disabled World (DW) due to its relevance to the disability community. Originally authored by Santa Fe Institute and published on 2022/08/21, this content may have been edited for style, clarity, or brevity.