This is an automated archive.

The original was posted on /r/askscience by /u/aggasalk on 2023-09-29 15:10:43+00:00.

To me the answer seems obvious, that - all other things being equal - if someone has a train of reasoning in mind, where they think “A” and “B because of A”, then it should be easier to change “B” than to change “A”, i.e. it’s easier to change conclusions than premises, since changing premises will tend to require also changing conclusions, and since that’s more work it’s harder to do.

To be clear, this is a question about psychology/thinking, not about logic or idealized deduction. I don’t assume that human thought is especially rational or logical, generally, just that it does often involve these kinds of dependent relations between ideas.

I’m looking for studies from experimental psychology (or “behavioral economics” etc) that demonstrate such a difference, or that demonstrate that the obvious answer is actually not true and that the opposite is more likely the case (that it’s easier to change premises than conclusions) - or that it’s totally more complicated than this. Just anything where this particular question has been explored experimentally.

thanks!