Thinking and Deciding

EFFECT OF ACTIVE OPEN-MINDEDNESS ON OUTCOMES 211
to evidence unless it leads to polarization. However, the effect can be found in other
cases aside from beliefs about capital punishment. For example, it is found with
attitudes toward pertussis vaccination, which produces serious side effects as well as
preventing potentially deadly disease (Meszaros, Asch, Baron, Hershey, Kunreuther,
and Schwartz-Buzaglo, 1996).
Note that the illusory correlation effect (described in Chapter 8) could lead to
violation of the neutral-evidence principle. If people interpret zero correlation as
consistent with their belief in a positive correlation, they will maintain that belief
more tenaciously than they should. The experiments on illusory correlation, together
with the experiment by Lord and his colleagues in which subjects tended to find
flaws only in the evidence that went against them, suggest that a major mechanism
of irrational persistence involves distortion of one’s perception of what the evidence
would mean to an unbiased observer.
An extreme example of the violation of the neutral-evidence principle was found
by Batson (1975). In his study, the evidence presented was not even neutral, but
was entirely against the belief in question, for the relevant subjects. Fifty female
high school students who attended a church-sponsored youth program were given
a questionnaire that included items concerning the divinity of Jesus. For example,
“Jesus actually performed miracles,” and “Jesus was only human.” The students
were then divided into two groups, according to their answer to the question, “Do
you believe Jesus is the Son of God?” (Of the fifty girls, forty two answered yes;
eight answered no.) Subjects in the two groups were then asked to read, discuss, and
evaluate some material purportedly “written anonymously and denied publication
in the New York Times at the request of the World Council of Churches because of
the obvious crushing effect it would have on the entire Christian world” (p. 180).
The writings claimed to show, on the basis of newly discovered scrolls, that the New
Testament was fraudulent. Of the forty-two believers, eleven accepted the veracity of
the article. This group became even more convinced of the divinity of Jesus than they
had been before reading the article. (The believers who did not accept the veracity
of the article did not change their belief, and the nonbelievers also strengthened their
disbelief in the divinity of Jesus, even though most of them did not accept the article
either.) The believers who accepted the article had the greatest need to strengthen
their belief in the divinity of Jesus, and they did so despite being given nothing but
negative evidence.
Effect of active open-mindedness on outcomes
These are some of the basic demonstrations of irrational belief persistence. Before
looking more closely at how it works, let us ask whether it matters. Does actively
open-minded thinking help produce better decisions?
Several studies have looked for a correlation between good thinking and good
outcomes. Herek, Janis, and Huth (1987) examined the thinking of U.S. presidents
(and their advisers) about how the United States should respond to nineteen interna-