Identity-Protected Cognition

A 2017 paper by Dan M. Kahan of Yale University explains identity-protective cognition. In his paper, he explores how people's political, cultural, sexual, and social identities have a major influence on their beliefs. Kahan originally termed this phenomenon "identity-protective cognition." Intelligence evolved more as a tool to enhance personal well-being, social status, and group belonging than a means of determining objective truth. He explains that intelligent individuals can reject scientifically accurate data in favor of information that aligns with the beliefs of their cultural, political, or social groups. As a result, we should expect individuals to acquire habits of mind that guide them to form and persist in beliefs that express their membership in and loyalty to a particular identity-defining affinity group. For example, Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked what defines a woman during her hearing to become a Supreme Court justice. She said she could not give the definition as she is not a biologist. A person uninvolved in gender ideology culture can easily describe a woman. Identity-protective cognition goes a long way in explaining how insanely polarizing things get when it comes to health, diet, medication, Covid, and most other current science, politics, and community standards. This post will help explain Kahan's perspectives.

Fraternity Hazing

To explain the concept of identity-protective cognition, let us consider the example of a climate scientist who is highly respected in his field but believes that human activities do not cause global warming. Despite his reputation, his viewpoint would not be accepted by most of his colleagues and a sizable portion of the world's population. The scientist would face potential ostracization and loss of standing among his peers, as well as the general population, and loss of funding. The scientist's intellect would, according to Kahan, guide his thinking into scientific positions that align with his peer group rather than hold unpopular beliefs, even if they are valid. The result is that the climate change field has become monolithic; the scientists who argue against human-caused warming are denied funding and find themselves on the outside looking in. 

 Additionally, scientists often rely on their group's positions to determine whether that available evidence should be given any weight. This means that individuals with opposing views are likely to remain stuck in their respective understandings of science, including the weight of expert opinion, rather than coming together and reaching a consensus as they consider the pool of information.

Motivated Consumption of Information

Kahan's work reveals that debates often stem from identity-protective cognition rather than a lack of scientific understanding. Surprisingly, individuals with high levels of science comprehension can be the most polarized, using their knowledge to bolster their group's views rather than seeking the truth. This pattern fosters a toxic environment where people prioritize expressing their group loyalty over understanding scientific facts. Sadly, as new facts arise, further polarization results between the groups with differing ideologies.

Guns Versus Skin

In one experiment, Kahan demonstrated that imaginary gun control data was interpreted correctly by those with the greatest knowledge of statistics only if it agreed with their stance on gun control. If it contradicted their beliefs, the subjects fared no better than people with limited knowledge of statistical data interpretation. When the same data was presented as skin rash treatment, the people more adept at statistical analysis interpreted the data correctly regardless of the conclusion it inferred because ideas about skin rash treatments are not polarizing. 

For Your Information…

The terms misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation have gained popularity in the last several years. However, they have negligible effect on identity-protected cognition. The gun-control experiment showed that we would lie to ourselves to maintain our preconceived notions and our identities amongst our chosen group, no matter the facts. 

Selective Hearing

Disinformation and factual information work in two ways. Governments and corporations may use it to sway people. Conversely, information, whether true or not, may be fed to groups hungry to hear messages that reflect their values. Either way, we hunt for information we prefer to hear.

Consequently, we find that misconceptions about science and culture are not the main cause of disputes over science-related issues. Instead, individuals who understand science well can still divide deeply along cultural lines, indicating that the problem lies not in scientific literacy but in how cultural identities shape our interpretation of scientific information. 

(In)correctness

Corrective information has little effect on individuals if it contradicts their belief system. For example, when the vaccines proved not to slow the spread of COVID, people who believed they did stick to their beliefs. Additionally, they dismissed those who thought the vaccines did not work as originally advertised. The fact that new information rarely changes one's group affinity confirms that factual information is more useful as a form of identity rather than a useful tidbit to aid true understanding.

 Arcane Knowledge and Authority

Those with the most scientific comprehension use reasoning to provide evidence to support their cultural group's position. They can easily mislead others who are not privy to their knowledge base, leveraging their knowledge into authoritative persuasion. Take Dr. Anthony Fauci, who initially claimed masks do not work, only to claim they work a month later. Finally, he stated that multiple masks would be better. A majority of the public was unaware that no new science had arisen to confirm his altered view; rather, he was conforming to the political consensus in Washington, his peer group, at that time. His recommendations were either acted upon or dismissed based on political party affiliation because Kahan points out that people are more likely to believe and spread information that aligns with their pre-existing views. Since mask-wearing was novel at the time, most people had no preconceived notion about the efficacy of mask-wearing and went along. The few who knew that studies lean toward the ineffectiveness of masks against respiratory infections found themselves with little company, so many of them kept quiet and complied to “go along to get along.”

Monty Python’s Comical Illustration

In a scene in Monty Python’s The Holy Grail, the authorities had already condemned a witch but wanted to appear that their conclusion was logical. The accused would either sink and drown, proving their innocence through death, or float, proving their guilt and be put to death. No other scenarios regarding innocence or guilt were considered. In a more recent example, it can be inferred that misinformation did not drive voting decisions in the 2016 election. Instead, citizens consumed information, whether true or not, to corroborate their already-made decisions about their preferred candidate being more virtuous than their opponent. So, any story praising the candidate they were not going to vote for was not given much credence. Moreover, people were more likely to believe negative stories about the candidate they did not support.

 Rational Thought Comes After We Make Up Our Minds

Misinformation is often produced by individuals who hold identity-protective beliefs. These individuals are not necessarily trying to arrive at an accurate understanding of the facts to make informed decisions. Instead, they use their beliefs to express their identity and align themselves with others who share similar values. This means that misinformation is not typically imposed on the public but rather produced by individuals who are complicit in spreading it. In the case of the witch, the public went along with the charade lest they be accused of being a witch. In the case of Clinton versus Trump, either side had already concluded who was the better candidate, hoping they were correct, placing them on the right side of history, while also taking credit for the beneficial decisions their candidate would make, while also claiming they prevented the evils the opposing candidate would have perpetrated. Since we can’t predict the future, the suppositions were more wishful thinking than fact.

How to Avoid Identity-Protected Cognition

Identity-protected cognition is quite easy to recognize in others but difficult to recognize in ourselves. There is a way to avoid it. If our goal is group identity, we will squander our rational abilities. Suppose our inherent value system is truly moral, and we aim to contribute to the well-being of our fellow citizens without controlling them. In that case, we will obtain an adequate amount of social acceptance from others without sharing identical belief systems. We can use our curiosity to fill knowledge gaps and establish objective truths for ourselves. We can share our perspectives with others and learn more from them. 

 Lastly, the focus should be on preventing the fusion of scientific facts with cultural values in the fields of science. This proactive approach ensures that scientific discussions are more about understanding the facts and less about affirming social identities, a crucial step in maintaining the integrity of scientific communication. Remember, humble curiosity is your best defense against identity-protective cognition.