A Framework on Polarization, Cognitive Inflexibility, and Rigid Cognitive Specialization

Abstract

Polarization is pervasive in the current sociopolitical discourse. Polarization tends to increase cognitive inflexibility where people become less capable of updating their beliefs upon new information or switching between different ways of thinking. Cognitive inflexibility can in turn increase polarization. We propose that this positive feedback loop between polarization and cognitive inflexibility is a form of threat response that has benefited humans throughout their evolutionary history. This feedback loop, which can be driven by conflict mindset, group conformity, and simplification of information, facilitates the formation of strong bonds within a group that are able to eliminate threats and increase individual fitness. Although cognitive inflexibility is conventionally seen as maladaptive, here we argue that cognitive inflexibility may be an adaptation under polarization. That is, in a highly polarized society most people only interact with members of their own social group, without having to confront perspectives from another group or interacting with out-group members. In this context, cognitive inflexibility creates rigid cognitive specialization, a set of cognitive traits that allow people to operate efficiently within their social circles but not outside of it. Although rigid cognitive specialization benefits individuals in the short term, it may lead to more polarization over the long run, and thus produce more conflict between groups. We call on future research to examine the link between cognitive inflexibility and rigid cognitive specialization.

Beliefs in misinformation about COVID-19 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine are linked: evidence from a nationally representative survey (Preprint)

“…Our finding is consistent with previous studies connecting belief rigidity to conspiratorial thinking [28] and beliefs in misinformation propagated through social media [64]. Rigid beliefs have been found to facilitate group cohesion, partisanship, polarization and extremism [25,29,65]. It is thus plausible that beliefs such as BM-C/ BM-U may serve as a groupshared alternative "truth" while being shared through the digital media environment as identified in our analysis.…”

How does framing influence preference for multiple solutions to societal problems?

“…However, changing dichotomous thinking may ultimately require more than behavioral interventions, starting with changes in the education system to include a more multifaceted and diverse curriculum in schools [ 63 , 64 ], improving science communication regarding complex and often counterintuitive issues [ 65 ], systemic changes to improve equality and inclusivity [ 12 ], as well as reducing political polarization [ 66 ]. These larger system-level changes could contribute to a less dichotomous sociopolitical environment where people are more open to different perspectives, emotionally balanced, and have less motivation to think dichotomously [ 67 ]. These changes are especially important in light the fact that some solutions (e.g., cash transfers to people experiencing homelessness) have been experimentally verified to be effective, yet are shunned by the public due to misconceptions regarding its efficacy or political affiliation that excludes certain solutions regardless of their efficacy.…”

Should the Canadian Public Service Worry about the Polarization in the Perceptions of Social Problems?

“…However, considering the increase in ideological divisions fueled by populist political discourse (Box, 2022; Loewen et al, 2021), we focused on gaps in two significant blocks of public opinions. According to Wu and colleagues (2022, 1), polarization is the process by which individuals or groups move towards opposite extremes of viewpoints or opinions. We are looking upstream from Prince's (2014) typology of universalism of public policies and programs in Canada, to settle on the perceptions of public problems that should be tackled by governments.…”