‘The known devil’: Untangling the biased brain

A voter might favour a course of action because it aligns with their pre-existing beliefs, and not because it is necessarily the best choice – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

By Varuni Ganepola

Birds build nests. Spiders spin intricate webs. Dogs bury bones. The salmon swims upstream. Babies suckle. These are not learned behaviours. They are instincts and reflexive behaviours that we are born with. They are important because they help us adapt to our environment and to survive. 

In contrast, ‘learning’ is a change in an organism’s behaviour or thought or knowledge, as a result of experience. Learning involves acquiring knowledge and skills through experience. We have learned when we have changed. But in Sri Lanka, it seems, that we never learn. This is a pithy that is often expressed. 

Learning involves complex processes of conscious and unconscious processes. If you have tried to learn a new language or a skill like playing a musical instrument, you will know that learning is not always easy and that outcomes vary. 

The psychology of learning and memory is vast and fascinating. Our brains are hardwired to remember the information that was most recently presented to us. This can lead us to overlook or forget the information we encountered earlier. Decay, due to lack of use, or illness, and interference due to too much incoming brain traffic, also make us disremember. In psychology, there are principles of recency effects and primacy effects. Recency effects say that the most recently presented items will most likely be remembered. It bodes well for our political groups to mention one or two salient points when campaigning ends. The recency effect is also manipulated by businesses and brands to enhance sales and marketing efforts, by subtly influencing customer behaviour. It can manipulate important outcomes.

Primacy effects take over when we are more likely to remember initial information. This is because initial information is processed diligently and devotedly. We are fresh at the beginning of a political speech. Thus, information is stored more effectively in the long-term memory centres of the brain. First impressions and last impressions tend to stick. So, it is not a surprise that if you are told something persuasive on the way to the polling booth, that that can influence your voting behaviour. 

Compelling memories or just stories: The brain and decision-making 

But to complicate matters, there are cognitive biases in processing, storing, and remembering information. Biases are errors and limitations in the way we think when we arrive at a conclusion. The Prefrontal Cortex (PFC) and Hippocampus are the most critical parts of the human brain for decision making. Simply put, these two parts talk to each other and the PFC takes a decision. Decision making is a ‘high-level’ cognitive process. It builds on more basic cognitive processes such as perception, memory, and attention, and these are uniquely identified by an essential element: the process of choice. Choice is the act of selecting among alternatives. Choice is also highly influenced by recognition and judgement that occur before a choice is made, and cognitive processes that occur after a choice is made (e.g., feedback and learning).

Cognitive biases are common. They happen when our brain tries to simplify information and, at times, it distorts our thinking and decision-making. It is, however, not all bad. Sometimes we need to make quick decisions, for example if there’s a danger or a threat. So they have adaptive value. If we had to think about every single thing when deciding (like reading hundreds of pages of election manifestos on who to vote for), it would take forever to arrive at a decision. So, when we are trying to decide to vote for a presidential candidate, we do this by taking mental short cuts (called heuristics). 

Biases are also related to the way we pay attention to something. We can’t and don’t pay attention to everything that happens around us. There are limits on the brain’s capacity to process information. So, paying attention is a selective process (attentional bias) which is usually an adequate process, but it leads to imperfect answers. This selective perception is influenced by who you are, what your preferences are, individual motivations, and social pressures. Also, from a young age, we learn to discriminate against those who are not like us (outgroups). Other biases are related to memory. The way we remember an event can be biased and lead to biased decision-making.

The myths our brains create

We all succumb to cognitive biases and there are many of them. A few examples of recognising that we are influenced by partiality can be seen in our tendency to pay attention to information that confirms our opinions (confirmation bias). Or knowing a little about a topic and assuming that we know everything about it. We pay attention to social media or articles that positively appraise our preferred presidential candidate rather than the ones we don’t like. During presidential elections, we tend to seek information that paints the candidate we support in a positive light, whilst dismissing any information that paints them in a negative light. Sounds familiar? 

The availability bias is a common one that is currently happening in us. We tend to overestimate how likely something is to happen based on how easily we can remember the same thing happening previously. Sounds familiar? Violent events of the past are also emotionally intense and the brain tends to effectively store negative information. Negative events like violence are also easy to retrieve. These cognitive biases make it seem like the violence will happen more frequently in the future. And we make imperfect decisions. Related to this is Anchoring. This bias involves relying too heavily on the first piece of information you receive (the “anchor”) and neglecting any subsequent information you learn. A person may have mostly good qualities, but say one thing bad about them, what happens to our judgement of them? So, when we learn something negative about a presidential candidate, any subsequent information can pale into significance. 

We can take this one step further. Psychology research shows us that we are even influenced by the speaker’s vocal confidence level, their perceived group or social status, their looks, accent, or popularity (Jiang et al, 2019). So, we often tend to focus on the speaker, rather than on what they are saying. How believable a speaker is, is often fraught with many cognitive biases. We are hardly logical or rational when it comes to making decisions.

Then there is the halo effect, another cognitive bias in which the overall impression of a person influences how we feel and think about a person’s specific traits. For example, we may think that someone is a charming speaker or is witty, or that ‘he smiled at me’. This affects the perception of other particular characteristics (“He will be a good leader” or ‘he is honest’). The physical attractiveness stereotype is associated with intelligence and positive personality traits. Social psychology research supports that jurors think good looking people are not guilty of criminal behaviour. Teachers have higher expectations of students who are better looking. In marketing, this is exploited. Shah Rukh Khan is an expert on Cadbury chocolate and motorcycles. Jaqueline Fernandez specialises in Pepsi, Lux soap, and even men’s ‘innerwear’. Perceptions of a single trait can carry over to other aspects.

The misinformation effect also distorts our knowledge. It’s a type of memory impairment caused by introducing misleading information. This is currently rampant in our election campaign. Apart from misleading information, when we also discuss an event with others, and if the others (especially credible others) are confident and convincing, the misleading information becomes incorporated into the memory of the past event. The more often we are exposed to misleading information, the more likely we are to believe that misinformation. 

Strength and tenacity of human belief 

Belief perseverance is a powerful and pervasive cognitive bias where we hold on to a belief even when confronted with evidence to show otherwise. We have a strong, natural tendency to cling to pre-existing beliefs, even when faced with evidence that those beliefs are wrong. Instead of evaluating evidence and revising the belief, what most of us tend to do is to reject the evidence. We resist changing our minds about who to vote for. In the end, we select information that confirm our beliefs. 

Belief perseverance has other serious consequences in governance, policy making, health care, and education. If we make decisions on flawed or outdated information and can’t look beyond rigid examples or arguments, we will be denied of genuine progress and change. We will never change, progress, or adapt if we are unable to update our ideas and beliefs. 

Our beliefs often become intertwined with our self-identity. Recognising that a long-held belief (about a politician) is incorrect maybe seen as a personal failure, or as an abandonment of faith or support. As a protective mechanism, our personality prevents the acceptance of such contradictory evidence, to preserve our self-esteem. There is an interesting book by Tavris and Aronson (2015), “Mistakes were made – but not by me” which explains the critical need to preserve our self-concept. This leads to self-justification and, unfortunately, a strengthening of our original beliefs. Our political leadership and the voter behaviour often succumb to this. Even when we learn our beliefs are wrong, we persist with our beliefs because we have stored them deeply in our memory. If you have tried to convince your friends and neighbours, with evidence, about a certain presidential candidate but they persist in believing their option, you will understand how deeply ingrained these emotionally-intense beliefs are. We like things to remain the same. 

Confucius said, “To see what is right and not do it, is the want of courage”. Confucius hints at the challenge of changing attitudes and behaviour when new insights unravel. People have resilient faith in their beliefs. Although well-meaning individuals encourage us to consider aspects of policy, vision, integrity, leadership, economy and so on, when selecting who to vote for, the brain with all its cognitive biases and short-cuts, will largely dismiss logical sequences of thinking. No matter how much we think we evaluate and analyse information, exhaustive political decision-making is a myth. A voter might favour a course of action because it aligns with their pre-existing beliefs, and not because it is necessarily the best choice. Even at the best of times, we succumb to the influence of cognitive biases and beliefs. 

Emotions and biases 

Emotions also play a pivotal role in decision-making. They affect how we respond to the world around us. Positive or negative emotional states can influence risk perception, preferences, and the evaluation of outcomes. If we don’t like a certain presidential candidate, no matter how valuable his or her statements or policies are, we will dislike them and give our vote to someone else. The interplay between cognition and emotion shapes the choices we make. The brain’s systems for sensing and making decisions are powerful but prone to error. Often, this fact confronts us directly. We rarely question why we feel a particular emotion. Instead, what we do is to seek ways to confirm that emotion. This is like the confirmation bias. We evaluate events in ways that are consistent with the emotions we feel. Overconfidence is another emotional bias that leads us to overestimate that a certain presidential candidate is doing better than he or she is. 

The devil we know: Lest we forget

In Sri Lanka, bad governance of successive post-independence Governments has brought the country to its knees. Corruption is structural and systemic. It has trickled down to ordinary people, affecting service users in almost every sector. Nearly 80% Sri Lankans believe that Government corruption is a major problem (Transparency International). This belief has gradually risen since 2002. 

The most common forms of corruption include facilitation payments paid to avoid bureaucratic red tape, bribe solicitation by Government officials, nepotism and cronyism. There is a high-level of corruption in the public procurement sector. There is a moderate to high risk reported in Sri Lanka’s judicial, police, public services, land, customs, tax administration, public procurement, and natural resources (GAN Integrity, 2024). We rank 115 amongst 180 countries in the world. Can we accept this? 

Those on the Government benches in parliament have contributed to bankrupting the Treasury and ruining the economy. They were responsible for raising their hands to approve various policies in self-interest rather than in national interest. Some sections of the community are beguiled by the rhetoric that there is ‘normalcy’ now, and tell us not to rock the boat. Here’s the irony: there is new-found faith in the very people who made Sri Lanka a pariah state in the world. They are seen as saviours and heroes of the day. We are told that there is gas and petrol today. But the availability of gas and petrol are not benchmarks of political success. The reality is that there should never have been shortages like what we saw. We would not have come to this situation if not for corrupt politicians and their regressive governance. We should never have been led to this state of bankruptcy and hardship. But today, some of us express faith in the very people who brought the country to its knees, to now develop the economy.  

Sri Lanka’s current ‘normality’ doesn’t reflect the ground reality. The unprecedented economic crisis we saw in 2022 was the worst the country has faced since 1948. After the British left, Sri Lanka had the second strongest economy in Asia. Today, poverty rates have continued to rise for the fourth year in a row, with an estimated 26% of Sri Lankans living below the poverty line in 2023 (April 2024, World Bank). Can we accept this? Micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises have closed, families are taking on debt to put food on the table and for health and education (April 2024, World Bank). 

Sri Lanka’s official poverty line has witnessed a sharp threefold rise within the span of just over a decade, a recent report by the Department of Census and Statistics revealed. The country is suffocating on foreign debt and surviving because of the loans amounting to $ 2.9 billion from the IMF. Sri Lanka, however, was already heavily in debt before the crisis. Successive Governments borrowed to finance infrastructure projects and prop up loss-making public utilities. The financial bailout has only temporarily fixed problems. This may be good enough for the urban, upper middle classes, and some business communities. But beneath Colombo’s busy and business-as-usual exterior, Colombo has the highest poverty line (August 2024, Department of Census and Statistics). 

There is widespread hardship all over the country. The official poverty line represents the minimum income required for an individual or household to cover essential living expenses such as food, shelter, and healthcare. There is serious loss of livelihoods and income, under-nourishment, poverty, very high cost of living exacerbated by taxation. There is no increase in domestic production or investment in industries. Approximately 60% of households experienced a decline in income with 24% of households being food insecure (Sri Lanka Development Update 2024, World Bank). One fourth of our citizens don’t have enough to eat. The United Nations reports that 31% of children aged under 5 are malnourished. (Human Rights Watch:January, 2024). Can we accept this? 

The situation for women and children is dismal. The Women in Need (WIN) reports that every three out of five women are victims of domestic violence, 44% of pregnant women are beaten at home. Child abuse has increased by 38% (NCPA, 2024). Three to five children are raped every day. 97% of rapists face no legal consequences. 95% of women are sexually harassed in public transportation. Can we accept this? Is this the sort of country we want to live in, or want our children to grow up in? We are like strangers to humanity. 

Ernest Weber in the 19th century talked about what neuropsychologists today refer to as the “just noticeable difference”. This is the Weber’s Law. Weber said that how likely we are to notice or react to a change depends on the strength of what we have experienced immediately before. This can influence our decision-making behaviour. For example, if you are holding a pebble and another pebble that is heavier is put on to your other hand, you will notice an increase in weight. This difference is noticed in comparison to the original weight in your hand. What this means is that we compare something with what we have experienced immediately before. In ordinary life, we are influenced by what’s happened most recently when we make decisions about what is currently going on. 

In the current local context, we seem to be comparing the current ‘new normal’ with what we have recently experienced (economic crisis). We compare the availability of gas and petrol with the shortages of the past. The current new normal is, comparatively, highly desirable in comparison. But we forget who and what caused these shortages. 

Leon Festinger (1956), a social psychologist, tells us about a small religious group’s leader who predicted the end of the world by flood on a specific day, whilst only the faithful would be saved. In preparation, people quit their jobs, discarded valuable possessions, and sold their houses. Of course, the flood didn’t take place on the designated day. But, interestingly, instead of discarding their beliefs, group members became more devoted to their leader. The reasoning was that their commitment to their belief and prayer saved the world. So, what really happened here? Something contradictory happened to this groups’ belief. In order to overcome their ‘cognitive dissonance’ (mental friction) caused by events that didn’t transpire, they justified their stance by changing perceptions around their belief. 

‘Something bad and familiar is better than something bad an unknown’

For a social psychologist, voting behaviour is fascinating. Everyone has to decide on the same day, and the options are the same for everyone. Modern research indicates that we vote for someone, or some ideology, that fits in with our attitudes (attitudinal fit). This is powerful especially when there’s perceived uncertainty. We differ in how we respond to uncertainty. Some individuals will not suffer discomfort when facing what is unknown. But for some, the brain clings to what is familiar because of cognitive bias that fears change. Change becomes aversive. 

If the devil we know isn’t good, how can the unknown devil be worse? There is a way in which knowledge grows. That is to give ourselves the opportunity to learn. Otherwise, without any attempt to learn, there is no new knowledge, no new experience, and most certainly, no change. Any progress depends on the ability to evaluate. Science self-corrects. Lack of self-correction (known devil) is like a deadly sin. Without this willingness and attempt to try and learn, life grounds to a halt. But there are also reasons why we vote for known corrupt politicians. One is self-centredness. You want your privileges to continue somehow, no matter what. Secondly, corrupt politicians are able to get you what you want, no matter what. 

In today’s world of constantly changing technology, manipulation of attitudes, and thereby, behaviour is potent. And less controllable. Sincere attempts to use reason and evidence don’t do much when it comes to voting behaviour. All that matters is that the message works. This also tells us that the message is the function of the speaker and who the audience is. This makes misinforming, misleading the voter, and presenting fragmental information, rampant. Who has time, or resources, to monitor and manage all this? And in some corners, journalistic ethics is a thing of the past. 

Life is in living, not looking back

Having said that, history has many major examples of cognitive biases. The 1948, at the US presidential election most major surveys and newspapers were convinced that the Republican candidate, Thomas Dewey, would easily defeat the incumbent, President Harry Truman. This belief was so deeply rooted that the Chicago Daily Tribune was persistently confident in the predictions of polls, and didn’t wait for the final results. They published the headline “Dewey Defeats Truman” on the front page of an early edition. In the end, Truman won the election. There are real dangers of clinging to beliefs despite emerging evidence to the contrary.

Another significant example is the tragic fate of the Titanic. This unshakable faith in its construction and design (invincibility of the Titanic) overlooked crucial safety measures, such as having an adequate number of lifeboats for all passengers. Over 1,500 people perished when the ship struck an iceberg on its maiden voyage, in April 1912.

We tend to prioritise our initial conclusions and resist changing our minds, even when it might be in our best interest to do so. Hopefully, most of us will not succumb to the apathy and inertia that promote the default beliefs or actions, to keep things the way they are. Whether we are open to new evidence and ready to adapt, whether we are ready to consider diverse sources and viewpoints, and whether we are ready to challenge our established beliefs, will be seen on 22 September.

Hopefully, the fate of Sri Lanka’s future will not be like the Titanic’s unsinkable myth. 

(The writer is a former senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Colombo.)