Perspicuo
Veteran Member
Are there studies that show if people believe what they say or think they believe? If not, how could this be researched?
-
Features
Are there studies that show if people believe what they say/think they believe?
- Thread starter Perspicuo
- Start date
It sounds like a trick question.
There were several studies that showed white people, when polled, will say they will vote for a black candidate out of fear of appearing racist, and then on election day vote the opposite when no one could see them.
Perspicuo
Veteran Member
Social pressure.
I wonder if it has ever been researched with respect to religious beliefs or politics, such as supporting giving money to the rich (while being poor) only because the candidate was in favor of the subjects religion, for example.
I wonder if it has ever been researched with respect to religious beliefs or politics, such as supporting giving money to the rich (while being poor) only because the candidate was in favor of the subjects religion, for example.
That depends on what you refer to. There are studies that shows that people are apt to argue against their own beliefs when that argument comes from someone else.
PyramidHead
Contributor
I've been thinking about this a lot lately, in reference to my own beliefs. What does it mean to hold a belief without it motivating one's behavior? In my case, veganism is a perfect example. I agree with the moral argument against contributing to the suffering of sentient animals. Yet, this belief does not influence my behavior very much. I try to purchase meat only from places that are less likely to mistreat animals, but I don't go too far out of my way. In the end, nobody would be able to look at how I eat and conclude that I believe breeding animals in order to kill and eat them is wrong. Is it just a semantic distinction to quibble about whether I actually believe it?
Malintent
Veteran Member
I don't think one has to necessarily practice what they preach... unless they protest "too much"... then they can put their 'money where their mouth is' (or shut the fuck up), so to speak.
As for politicizing.. saying things you don't even a little believe in for the purpose of gaining followers... a lie detector test might be a good tool for collecting data around that.
As for politicizing.. saying things you don't even a little believe in for the purpose of gaining followers... a lie detector test might be a good tool for collecting data around that.
thebeave
Veteran Member
Yep. That's called the "Bradley Effect" after LA Mayor Tom Bradley.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Form a cursory search here are two examples that intersect with your OP.
Teachers' attitudes towards job satisfaction and their students' beliefs and motivation http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/full/410366a0.html
Remembrance, Responsibility, and Reparations: The Use of Emotions in Talk about the 1921 Tulsa Race Riot http://www.researchgate.net/profile..._Race_Riot/links/557afccf08ae26eada8afaf6.pdf
I think people should suggest methods from what has been published rather than as a result of hand waving opinion. Ergo the studies.
People think and do things to feel good. If you do something good, the motivation is always for yourself. Doing something for someone else is so that you will feel good unto yourself. You can't help it. There are ways to argue that but it is psychology stuff that says everything is for the self, or something like that. If you attempt to do something for the sake of not making it about yourself it is still about yourself for obvious reasons. People have this illusion of selflessness but selflessness comes from intention and the intention is always going to be from self, so there is no selflessness no matter what. there isn't even less self. Just self and what it wants. Apply that to the title of this thread somehow and this is probably a legitimate comment.
Perspicuo
Veteran Member
Lie detectors are BS.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201303/do-lie-detectors-work
http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx
Although screen writers from 50s to the 80s loved them, and so they have become engrained into the public imagination ever since.
Perspicuo
Veteran Member
Your first URL is about repression. That wasn't the question.
Your second URL (about keeping your belief system intact) is not exactly an answer to the question either.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Thank you for beginning the discussion of your OP. Strictly speaking both of your comments are accurate. Neither study fall exactly on point. I suspect you couldn't find studies reflecting your question directly either. The intent of my posting is to illustrate the broad intersections between social psychology and keeping or contradicting a strongly held belief. Suppression as you note in our comment on the first study is a mechanism through which contradictory belief holdings are justified by individuals which certainly is a mechanism for believing one thing and espousing another. Its not the only one by any means.
The reason for few studies here is that we don't really have very good social cognitive theory. I suspect this, in part, is due to the influence of those who follow introspective and Freudian methods, both of which are mostly self fulfilling constructions not too well linked to what we are coming to know about the nature of our brains. Since neither of the methods mentioned are actually scientific, use empirical method which generate publicly testable results, conclusions arising will suffer. and theories will have to be falsified and new paths found.
My view of mind is more dependent on observation of behavior related to factors driven by survival related factors. For instance, since the humans main enemy and threat to survival are men it makes sense, since it is acknowledged we've developed social frameworks for working together, that what we do is predict what others expect us to do rather than do what we may feel we want to do. That, to me, sets the cognitive aware or conscious stage.
Now your proposition comes down to we have a history which we operate from which is seldom in sync, especially in this more or less free agent age where people interact with mostly different developed schema in others, that we seldom act as we believe putting your thought front and center as lever for getting an explanation of how modern western humans act and with what they have to constantly deal. We don't see much done here because our models are not tuned to such questions.
Obviously, if this is the case, one has to look at current research and then cast it in a frame like mine. Sure there are other frames. What I've done is provide some links from which we can frame, in my view, what are the answers to your OP.
If my approach is satisfactory I suggest we give it a slog.
Bottom line. You ask a very germane question that needs answering. All I've done is suggest one way to get at it.
ronburgundy
Contributor
Its a good question. It is tough to design a study that clearly shows a person lacks the belief they claim to. There are no direct objective measures of belief or any other mental state. Everything is an indirect correlate, and in general verbal self-reports no more unreliable a reflection of belief than any other.
That said, I think it is very clear that what people say the believe should not be taken at fact value, and the burden is really on those who draw the inference that such utterances accurately reflect mental states of belief. Actions are often not a reliable indicator because an action can be determined by the net impact of many beliefs and goals. However, I do think that actions where an objectively wrong belief can lead to outcomes that are directly harmful to the person are most revealing about what the person truly believes. For example, many claims of religious beliefs are "fake", not really conscious lies but more self-deluded claims where the person thinks that just because they say means they do believe it. Rejection of evolution is among these. When there is no consequence, such as voting to stop teaching evolution in schools, the person can act as though they believe evolution is not true. But when the action could kill them, this reflects their true belief, such as when they take medical treatments they know only exist due to application of evolutionary theory. A person who truly believed evolution was false would not consider such treatments any more than Richard Dawkins would consider faith healing. I also think that aggression toward open doubters and non-believers is often a sign of false belief being defensively protected from being exposed. This isn't always the case, because maybe the doubters pose a real threat to societal outcomes. But when there is aggression in the absence of any real threat, a likely motive is trying to prevent those doubts from exposing the believers own insecurities and doubts about what they claim so definitively is true. I suspect the tendency toward violent intolerance of mere questioning among religious fundamentalists (even when the hold a super majority) is that they state their beliefs with such certainty and feel a need for such certainty, yet the lack of any evidence makes such certainty impossible without vigilent self-delusion and quieting of any doubts.
This is not to say that fundies believe in God less than moderates. They do believe with more certainty. But their state belief is so absolutely certain (and their heinous actions require that certainty) and beyond the certainty of their actual beliefs that any degree of public uncertainty is a threat.
BTW, this is why I often argue that the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is usually wrongly applied. A Scotsman does not refer to a psychological state. But a "theist" does, as does a "Christian". Thus, people merely claiming they are one is of minimal value in determining whether they actually are, which is determined by the state of the actual beliefs that are not reliably reflected by such utterances.
That said, I think it is very clear that what people say the believe should not be taken at fact value, and the burden is really on those who draw the inference that such utterances accurately reflect mental states of belief. Actions are often not a reliable indicator because an action can be determined by the net impact of many beliefs and goals. However, I do think that actions where an objectively wrong belief can lead to outcomes that are directly harmful to the person are most revealing about what the person truly believes. For example, many claims of religious beliefs are "fake", not really conscious lies but more self-deluded claims where the person thinks that just because they say means they do believe it. Rejection of evolution is among these. When there is no consequence, such as voting to stop teaching evolution in schools, the person can act as though they believe evolution is not true. But when the action could kill them, this reflects their true belief, such as when they take medical treatments they know only exist due to application of evolutionary theory. A person who truly believed evolution was false would not consider such treatments any more than Richard Dawkins would consider faith healing. I also think that aggression toward open doubters and non-believers is often a sign of false belief being defensively protected from being exposed. This isn't always the case, because maybe the doubters pose a real threat to societal outcomes. But when there is aggression in the absence of any real threat, a likely motive is trying to prevent those doubts from exposing the believers own insecurities and doubts about what they claim so definitively is true. I suspect the tendency toward violent intolerance of mere questioning among religious fundamentalists (even when the hold a super majority) is that they state their beliefs with such certainty and feel a need for such certainty, yet the lack of any evidence makes such certainty impossible without vigilent self-delusion and quieting of any doubts.
This is not to say that fundies believe in God less than moderates. They do believe with more certainty. But their state belief is so absolutely certain (and their heinous actions require that certainty) and beyond the certainty of their actual beliefs that any degree of public uncertainty is a threat.
BTW, this is why I often argue that the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is usually wrongly applied. A Scotsman does not refer to a psychological state. But a "theist" does, as does a "Christian". Thus, people merely claiming they are one is of minimal value in determining whether they actually are, which is determined by the state of the actual beliefs that are not reliably reflected by such utterances.
DBT
Contributor
We are not even honest with ourselves, apparently:
Abstract
''Are people better self- or social psychologists when they predict prosocial behavior? Why might people be more or less accurate when predicting their own and others' actions? In two studies, participants considered variants of situations classically known to influence helping behavior (being alone vs. in a group, being in a good rather than bad mood). Participants made predictions about how they and their peers would act. Their predictions revealed that participants incorporated situational variations into social predictions, yet failed to do so when making self-predictions. These errors in self-prediction were not generated by response scale-type. This evidence suggests that people more appropriately use their knowledge of situational pressures when engaging in social rather than self-predictions.''
Abstract
''Are people better self- or social psychologists when they predict prosocial behavior? Why might people be more or less accurate when predicting their own and others' actions? In two studies, participants considered variants of situations classically known to influence helping behavior (being alone vs. in a group, being in a good rather than bad mood). Participants made predictions about how they and their peers would act. Their predictions revealed that participants incorporated situational variations into social predictions, yet failed to do so when making self-predictions. These errors in self-prediction were not generated by response scale-type. This evidence suggests that people more appropriately use their knowledge of situational pressures when engaging in social rather than self-predictions.''
braces_for_impact
Veteran Member
I'd have to track it down again, but I remember reading about an FMRI study that was done which was interesting. In the study, people were asked about beliefs they held, and a certain area of their brain would light up - what they think. Then they were asked about what a friend or companion thinks and a separate area would light up. Then they were asked what God thinks about certain things, and the part of the brain that lit up was the section corresponding to their own beliefs.
Kharakov
Quantum Hot Dog
No.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Since there are studies that show what the effects of people not meaning (believing) what they say (see below) I'm confident there are studies on whether people believe what they say.
Do People Mean What They Say?Implications for Subjective Survey Data http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/marianne.Bertrand/research/papers/mean_say_aer.pdf
- - - Updated - - -
Since there are studies that show what the effects of people not meaning (believing) what they say (see below) I'm confident there are studies on whether people believe what they say.
Do People Mean What They Say?Implications for Subjective Survey Data http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/marianne.Bertrand/research/papers/mean_say_aer.pdf
First you have to ask, What are beliefs? How do we form them? And once formed, why do we defend them in the face of all logic?
My own experience and research show most beliefs form out of comfort, saving energy, and fear. All good survival reasons.
Let's start with what are beliefs. You believe your car is in the driveway where you left it. A good modern belief, formed so you don't have to waste energy checking on it every 30 seconds. So this belief saves energy. It also comforts. It is the very definition of a belief. "Beliefs are knowledge or the assumption of knowledge, of things outside of our sensory perceptions. You can't see, touch, hear, taste, or sense the car is in the driveway, but you base your belief on other things. Experience, logic, group think, etc. It allows you to rest comfortable without worrying about such things. You are right not to worry, you have parked there thousands of times safely, so have your neighbours.
We can and do apply this logic, to all aspects of our lives, and one can imagine early man doing it also, with regards to lions, enemy, etc.
When it comes to religion, there is not much difference between the thought: " Don't go out at night, there are lions, it will cost you your life."
and the thought: " Don't deny Jesus, it might cost your your eternal life."
Both beliefs might be right or wrong, depending on your life's experiences and how much logic you apply. Both are comforting if followed.
Anyway good luck with your research, I look forward to the results.
My own experience and research show most beliefs form out of comfort, saving energy, and fear. All good survival reasons.
Let's start with what are beliefs. You believe your car is in the driveway where you left it. A good modern belief, formed so you don't have to waste energy checking on it every 30 seconds. So this belief saves energy. It also comforts. It is the very definition of a belief. "Beliefs are knowledge or the assumption of knowledge, of things outside of our sensory perceptions. You can't see, touch, hear, taste, or sense the car is in the driveway, but you base your belief on other things. Experience, logic, group think, etc. It allows you to rest comfortable without worrying about such things. You are right not to worry, you have parked there thousands of times safely, so have your neighbours.
We can and do apply this logic, to all aspects of our lives, and one can imagine early man doing it also, with regards to lions, enemy, etc.
When it comes to religion, there is not much difference between the thought: " Don't go out at night, there are lions, it will cost you your life."
and the thought: " Don't deny Jesus, it might cost your your eternal life."
Both beliefs might be right or wrong, depending on your life's experiences and how much logic you apply. Both are comforting if followed.
Anyway good luck with your research, I look forward to the results.
Last edited: