Stronger negative feelings (i.e., more disturbed, upset, & frustrated) when encountered others who, in our view, hold false beliefs, compared to when we think that others’ beliefs are merely different from our own

Molnar, Andras and Loewenstein, George F., Thoughts and Players: An Introduction to Old and New Economic Perspectives on Beliefs (March 16, 2021). The Science of Beliefs: A multidisciplinary Approach (provisional title, to be published in October 2021). Cambridge University Press. Edited by Julien Musolino, Joseph Sommer, and Pernille Hemmer. SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3806135

Abstract: In this chapter we summarize how economists conceptualize beliefs. Moving both backward and forward in time, we review the way that mainstream economics currently deals with beliefs, as well as, briefly, the history of economists’ thinking about beliefs. Most importantly, we introduce the reader to a recent, transformational movement in economics that focuses on belief-based utility. This approach challenges the standard economic assumption that beliefs are only an input to decision making and examines implications of the intuitive idea that people derive pleasure and pain directly from their beliefs. We also address the question of when and why people care about what other people believe. We close with a discussion of the implications of these insights for contemporary social issues such as political polarization and fake news.

Keywords: Anticipatory Emotions, Belief-based Utility, Cognitive Dissonance, False Beliefs, Homophily, Motivated Reasoning, Polarization, Self-esteem, Theory of Mind

JEL Classification: A11, B12, B21, D83, D91

---

In our own recent research, however (Molnar & Loewenstein, 2020), we have been advancing a subtly, but we believe crucially, different perspective. Our own view is that it is not awareness that other people have different beliefs than our own which causes discomfort. Rather, it is the belief that others hold, and act on, beliefs that we perceive to be wrong. This idea is also captured by “Cunningham’s Law”—named after Ward Cunningham, the developer of the first wiki—which states that “the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it’s to post the wrong answer.”5 At the heart of this rather witty “law” lies the intuition that people have a strong desire to correct others’ beliefs when they deem those beliefs to be false. Aligned with the above anecdotal evidence, our own research demonstrates that participants express stronger negative feelings (i.e., are more disturbed, upset, and frustrated) when they encounter others who—from the participant’s point of view—hold false beliefs, compared to when participants think that others’ beliefs are merely different from their own (Molnar & Loewenstein, 2020). These strong negative emotions can then, based on the situation and the type of relationship, either trigger approach (e.g., confronting the other person, attempting to persuade them) or avoidance behaviors (e.g., blocking the other person online).

The subject of these false beliefs can be anything: beliefs about the individual (e.g., misunderstanding one’s intentions), about relationships (incorrectly believing that someone’s partner had been cheating on them), economic outcomes (tax cuts on the rich ultimately “trickle down” to help the poor), or even global phenomena (climate change is unrelated to human activity). What matters more is not the domain of belief, rather, the conviction that someone else holds an incorrect view of the individual, relationships, outcomes, or the world. The more convinced people are that others hold false beliefs, the more upset they will be (Molnar & Loewenstein, 2020), and the more likely they will take some action (either confront these others, or making extra effort to avoid them).