Changing one’s mind is often treated as a weakness in public debate, yet psychologists increasingly argue it may be one of the most valuable cognitive skills we possess. In an analysis published in research highlighted by New Scientist, columnist David Robson explores why people struggle so strongly with opinion change and what science now suggests can be done to overcome this mental resistance. Far from being a simple matter of intelligence or education, the ability to revise beliefs appears to depend heavily on emotional processes that shape how we respond to discomfort and identity threat.
The idea that humans resist changing their minds is not new. As novelist Leo Tolstoy once observed, even the simplest idea can become difficult to accept if someone is already convinced they know the truth. Modern psychology has long supported this intuition, linking cognitive rigidity to confirmation bias, identity protection, and the broader forces behind political and cultural polarisation. Social media has amplified these tendencies by exposing people to increasingly segmented information environments, reinforcing pre-existing views rather than challenging them.
However, recent work by Stephanie Dolbier at the University of California, Los Angeles, and her colleagues offers a more hopeful perspective. Their research suggests that open-mindedness is not simply a rare personality trait but something that can be cultivated through specific psychological strategies. At the core of their findings is the idea that mental flexibility depends on the ability to tolerate emotional discomfort — particularly the unease that arises when long-held beliefs are questioned.
Psychologists measure open-minded thinking through attitudes toward evidence and belief revision. Individuals who agree that contradictory evidence should be considered and that multiple explanations should be explored before drawing conclusions are considered more open-minded than those who see changing one’s mind as weakness or unnecessary. This “actively open-minded thinking” has been linked to a range of cognitive advantages, including improved judgement in uncertain situations.
One of the most striking examples comes from research by Philip Tetlock at the University of Pennsylvania, who studied people’s ability to predict geopolitical events. In large-scale forecasting competitions involving hundreds of participants, Tetlock identified a group he called “superforecasters” — individuals who consistently outperformed others. A key trait they shared was not exceptional intelligence alone, but a willingness to revise beliefs when confronted with new information. This adaptability allowed them to outperform those who clung more rigidly to initial assumptions.
Despite these advantages, most people struggle to change their minds in practice. According to the research discussed in New Scientist, this resistance is driven by several psychological barriers. One is social embarrassment: admitting a mistaken belief can feel like a loss of credibility or competence. More deeply, many beliefs are tied to identity — political, religious, or cultural — meaning that changing one view can feel like destabilising the self. In such cases, disagreement is not just intellectual but existential.
To protect this fragile sense of self, the brain often engages in what psychologists call “motivated reasoning”. Instead of evaluating evidence neutrally, individuals selectively search for information that supports their existing views while dismissing contradictory data. This process can be subtle but powerful, leading people to reinforce beliefs even in the face of clear counterevidence. It also helps explain why factual correction alone is often insufficient to change entrenched opinions.
One promising line of research suggests that emotional awareness may help break this cycle. Studies on “wise reasoning” indicate that individuals who can describe their emotional states in nuanced terms are better able to consider multiple perspectives. Rather than simply labelling feelings as good or bad, they can recognise complex emotional mixtures such as frustration, insecurity, or fear. This deeper awareness appears to reduce defensive reactions during disagreement.
For example, a person who initially interprets disagreement as anger at another’s “ignorance” might, with greater reflection, recognise underlying feelings of insecurity or fear of being wrong. This shift can reduce defensiveness and open the door to re-evaluating one’s own position. In this way, emotional clarity becomes a tool for intellectual flexibility rather than a distraction from it.
Related research suggests that mindfulness practices can support this process. By training attention toward internal emotional states, mindfulness may help individuals notice the early signs of reactive thinking before it escalates into rigid judgement. Some studies indicate that even brief mindfulness interventions can reduce knee-jerk responses and encourage more balanced reasoning when encountering opposing views.
Alternative approaches involve cognitive role-playing techniques. In one experiment referenced by New Scientist, participants were instructed to respond to controversial issues “like scientists”, adopting an analytical and objective mindset. This simple reframing led to increased openness on divisive topics such as geopolitical conflicts, with effects lasting several months. The results suggest that perspective-shifting exercises can produce lasting changes in reasoning habits.
Another strategy involves broadening self-perception during moments of disagreement. When people feel challenged, they often reduce their identity to a single contested belief, increasing emotional stakes. However, reminding oneself of other personal qualities — such as creativity, loyalty, or humour — can restore psychological balance. This reduces the threat associated with being wrong and makes it easier to evaluate evidence more objectively.
Finally, researchers emphasise the importance of reframing cognitive discomfort itself. Rather than interpreting uncertainty or doubt as failure, individuals can view it as a sign of intellectual growth. Studies show that people who believe cognitive abilities can be developed tend to respond more constructively to disagreement and are more willing to update their beliefs over time. In this sense, discomfort becomes not a warning signal to retreat, but a marker of learning in progress.
Dolbier and her colleagues caution that these techniques require further testing across diverse populations and contexts. However, the emerging evidence points to a consistent conclusion: open-mindedness is not merely an abstract ideal but a trainable skill rooted in emotional regulation. As debates over science, politics, and identity become increasingly polarised, the ability to tolerate mental discomfort and revise beliefs may prove not only useful but essential.
