We can be reasonable creatures, but mostly we are reactive ones. We respond emotionally to many cues and triggers in the environment, including the beliefs of other people. The increase in affective polarisation (AP) that has been seen over the past few decades, and the hostility towards outgroups online, are emotional phenomena. So, impacting upon how we feel will be one obvious way to reduce AP and beliefism (recall from last week’s post that I define this as discrimination against someone who has different beliefs).
This is not to say that we always need to reduce or remove our emotional reactions to perspectives and people. Whilst being “too emotional” is an insult, so too is being “devoid of emotion”. Several cool studies show that we can make some quite crazy decisions when we do not get feedback for how those decisions feel, such as when brain damaged patients lose considerable sums of money playing cards because they don’t feel the pain of losses. As ever, nothing in life is wholly good or bad. We are more effective – and rational – when how we feel is part of the feedback from the consequences of our actions. The objective, therefore, is to improve our emotional reactions, so that they are fit for purpose.
There is also evidence showing how emotions significantly impact belief formation, reinforcement, and beliefism. Fear is a particularly potent emotion in these regards. When we are afraid, we rely heavily on stereotypes and exhibit a decreased willingness to engage with conflicting viewpoints. Studies have found that participants exposed to fear-inducing stimuli showed a marked reduction in empathetic engagement with the outgroup members. Additionally, these participants were more likely to endorse negative stereotypes and exhibit stronger in-group biases, highlighting how fear can entrench existing beliefs and inhibit openness to alternative perspectives. Put simply, more fear, less empathy.
Positive emotions have been shown to have the opposite effect. There is some suggestion that positive emotions broaden an individual's thought-action repertoire, which in turn helps to build their social and psychological resources. This is not without criticism, though, as recent research suggests that negative emotions can also increase the breadth of attention. It is likely that the differences are explained by motivation: some positive and some negative emotions can lead to us wanting to approach something whilst others may result in us wanting to avoid it. The point here is that, in the context of beliefism, happiness and related positive emotions have the potential to encourage more open-minded consideration of alternative viewpoints and foster greater empathy towards others.
Several of the interventions designed to reduce beliefism will require us to take the emotional equivalent of a deep breath. One way that people could stop themselves wading into issues online is to set a few seconds delay on their social media post and ask for confirmation that they want to send it. A proverbial and a literal deep breath both enable us to detach ourselves ever so slightly from the immediate “system 1” environment and engage “system 2” processes. It takes around 15 minutes for system 2 to engage properly again after system 1 emotions have been in charge.
It’s hard for us to remember when and how to take a break, though, especially in the heat of debate. So, this could be one item on a checklist in the workplace, or a post-it note on your computer screen. Indeed, the art of pausing not only gives our brains a moment to reset but also serves as a bridge to better understanding. When emotions run high, they cloud our ability to see things from other perspectives. By stepping away, we create a psychological space that allows for emotional cooling and cognitive reappraisal. This isn't just about stopping an argument; it's about enriching it. It's about returning to the discussion with a refreshed mind and perhaps a new viewpoint that wasn't apparent in the throes of disagreement. Moments of pause can become rituals of reflection, where 'thinking time' is as important as 'doing time'.
Managing emotions in the digital realm, including text-based communications like emails, is vital for reducing beliefism. Alongside taking a break, it’s helpful to clarify your intentions in your messages and to ask for clarification when interpreting others' messages. The lack of non-verbal cues in text-based communication can lead to misunderstandings. Setting boundaries and knowing when to step away from a conversation can be crucial. Knowing when to hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em in the words of Kenny Rogers. It never ceases to amaze me how long people will spend emailing or messaging someone back and forth, and how long their messages are when they do. Often the situation will escalate completely unnecessarily. There comes a time when it’s time to end the conversation – either completely or by simply picking up the phone and having a proper chat to clear the air.
We’re not going to reduce beliefism by willing ourselves more tolerant. It’s too difficult – and too easy to go with the flow of surrounding ourselves with people who hold similar beliefs. It is a much more tractable problem if we think about how we can design environments – the situations and contexts in our lives – in ways that make it easier for us be less beliefist without having to think too hard about it. Understanding how our feelings impact our beliefs and behaviour will be a critical first step in thinking about how we can design in the kinds of feelings that allow us to do a little better in listening to the people we disagree with.