Inconsistent yet unyielding: Persistence of contradictory beliefs and strategies for their reconciliation.

To better understand how inconsistent beliefs persist and whether the tendency to endorse them (labelled doublethink) is malleable, we conducted five preregistered studies and a qualitative follow‐up (total N = 1635 Serbian participants). We first found and replicated that doublethink was robustly r...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:British Journal of Psychology Vol. 116; no. 4; pp. 1050 - 1076
Main Authors: Petrović, Marija B., Žeželj, Iris
Format: Article
Published: Wiley-Blackwell Nov2025
Subjects:
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=188606582&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 188606582
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00071269
        BJP
      jtl: British Journal of Psychology
      issn: 00071269
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Nov2025
      vid: 116
      iid: 4
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
    artinfo:
      ui:
        188606582
        10.1111/bjop.70002
      ppf: 1050
      ppct: 26
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: C
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 1.4MB
      tig:
        atl: Inconsistent yet unyielding: Persistence of contradictory beliefs and strategies for their reconciliation.
      aug:
        au:
          Petrović, Marija B.
          Žeželj, Iris
        affil: LIRA Lab, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
      su:
        Serbia
        Qualitative research
        Culture
        Executive function
        Content analysis
        Interviewing
        Cognitive dissonance
        Psychology
        Students
        Cognition
        Self-perception
        Bar codes
        Statistical correlation
        Research funding
        Cronbach's alpha
        Data analysis
        Research evaluation
        Two-way analysis of variance
        Descriptive statistics
        Surveys
        Experimental design
        Research
        Research methodology
        Statistics
        Theory
        Thought & thinking
        Regression analysis
      sug:
        subj:
          Qualitative research
          Culture
          Executive function
          Content analysis
          Interviewing
          Cognitive dissonance
          Psychology
          Students
          Cognition
          Self-perception
          Serbia
          Bar codes
          Statistical correlation
          Research funding
          Cronbach's alpha
          Data analysis
          Research evaluation
          Two-way analysis of variance
          Descriptive statistics
          Surveys
          Experimental design
          Research
          Research methodology
          Statistics
          Theory
          Thought & thinking
          Regression analysis
      keyword:
        doublethink
        inconsistent beliefs
        overcoming contradictions
        superficial information processing
        thinking styles
        doublethink
        inconsistent beliefs
        overcoming contradictions
        superficial information processing
        thinking styles
      ab: To better understand how inconsistent beliefs persist and whether the tendency to endorse them (labelled doublethink) is malleable, we conducted five preregistered studies and a qualitative follow‐up (total N = 1635 Serbian participants). We first found and replicated that doublethink was robustly related to both a more intuitive, superficial information processing style and a lack of ability to spot contradictions (r =.20 and r =.21, ps <.001). We next tested three progressively more direct interventions to reduce doublethink, all unsuccessful – the first one tried to increase sensitivity to contradictions in irrelevant material, the second pushed respondents to reconcile pairs of newly provided inconsistent beliefs and the third made them cross‐reference their own inconsistent beliefs. When asked to elaborate on their inconsistencies in semi‐structured interviews, respondents did not evaluate them negatively, but instead employed circumvention strategies – attributing incompatibility to the response format or diluting the content of the claims. The most commonly used strategy was to rely on adding additional logical conditions to the beliefs (in 34% of the cases). Although these strategies could reflect rational belief safeguarding mechanisms, they also might allow for moral relativization, double standards or incompatible expectations from others (e.g. posing irreconcilable standards for minority groups).
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N