Lubrano, S. S. (2025, May 18).
The Guardian.
Here is an excerpt:
There are lots of reasons why debate (and indeed, information-giving and argumentation in general) tends to be ineffective at changing people’s political beliefs. Cognitive dissonance, a phenomenon I studied as part of my PhD research, is one. This is the often unconscious psychological discomfort we feel when faced with contradictions in our own beliefs or actions, and it has been well documented. We can see cognitive dissonance and its effects at work when people rapidly “reason” in ways that are really attempts to mitigate their discomfort with new information about strongly held beliefs. For example, before Trump was convicted of various charges in 2024, only 17% of Republican voters believed felons should be able to be president; directly after his conviction, that number rose to 58%. To reconcile two contradictory beliefs (that presidents shouldn’t do x, and that Trump should be president), an enormous number of Republican voters simply changed their mind about the former. In fact, Republican voters shifted their views on more or less all the things Trump had been convicted of: fewer felt it was immoral to have sex with a porn star, pay someone to stay silent about an affair, or falsify a business record. Nor is this effect limited to Trump voters: research suggests we all rationalise in this way, in order to hold on to the beliefs that let us keep operating as we have been. Or, ironically, to change some of our beliefs in response to new information, but often only in order to not have to sacrifice other strongly held beliefs.
But it’s not just psychological phenomena like cognitive dissonance that make debates and arguments relatively ineffective. As I lay out in my book, probably the most important reason words don’t change minds is that two other factors carry far more influence: our social relationships; and our own actions and experiences.
Here are some thoughts:
The article discusses how people often resist changing their minds, even when presented with strong evidence, due to the psychological and social costs involved. It explains that beliefs are deeply tied to personal identity and social relationships, making individuals reluctant to alter them to avoid feelings of inconsistency or social rejection. The psychological mechanism at play is cognitive dissonance, where holding contradictory beliefs causes discomfort, leading people to reject new information that conflicts with their existing views. Additionally, motivated reasoning drives individuals to interpret evidence in a way that aligns with their preexisting beliefs to maintain emotional and social harmony. The article suggests that fostering open, non-confrontational discussions and emphasizing shared values can help reduce resistance to changing one’s mind, as it lessens the perceived threat to identity and social bonds.
Persuading people is a lot like psychotherapy because both require creating a safe, non-judgmental space where individuals can explore conflicting beliefs without feeling defensive, allowing change to emerge from within rather than through forceful confrontation.
