Political beliefs are hard to change, even when a person is presented with counterarguments. This was confirmed by a study conducted in Poland using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI - a method that allows indirect tracking of brain activity through changes in blood flow). The results were published in the journal Scientific Reports.
The experiment involved 46 people with strong left-wing views, recruited through social media. Due to a technical error, the final behavioral sample consisted of 43 people: 34 women, 8 men and 1 non-binary participant. The average age was about 25 years (from 18 to 62). All were right-handed without neurological or psychiatric disorders.
First, participants rated how much they agreed with eight political statements (for example, "Abortion should be legal", "Poland should accept refugees") and eight non-political facts ("Thomas Edison invented the light bulb"). Then, in the scanner, they were shown these statements and five counterarguments for each, after which they were asked to re-rate the strength of their belief on a scale from 1 to 7.
It turned out that under the pressure of facts, belief in non-political statements dropped noticeably: from 6.13 to 5.37 points. But political beliefs barely shifted: from 5.72 to 5.68. The difference in effect is enormous: for facts - 1.13 (by Cohen's d, where 0.8 is already considered a large effect), for politics - 0.06 (practically zero). A week later, the picture held among 32 participants.
The brain responded differently. When reading counterarguments against political views, activity increased in the default mode network (areas active during self-reflection and thinking about oneself). The researchers interpret this as a sign that political beliefs are linked to personal identity. By contrast, counterarguments against facts activated areas responsible for external attention and flexible thinking.
Interestingly, participants spent an average of 5.16 seconds evaluating political statements after counterarguments, versus 5.70 for non-political ones. The authors suggest that political judgments may be made faster and less deliberately.
Unlike an earlier American study, the Polish work found no link between activity in the amygdala and insular cortex (structures associated with emotions) and willingness to change beliefs. The scientists cautiously suggest that resistance may be more related to cognitive processes and identity than to emotional arousal.
The authors emphasize that the sample consisted only of leftists, so it cannot be claimed that conservatives or centrists would behave the same way. In addition, the political statements were evaluative ("how things should be"), while the non-political ones were verifiable facts, which in itself may influence brain activity. Neuroimaging data do not prove a specific psychological process, but only align with the interpretation.
"Changing political beliefs is not just a matter of better arguments," says the head of the work, Malgorzata Kossowska. "They are often tied to a sense of who we are." According to her, the results do not mean that leftists are especially stubborn or that beliefs cannot be changed.