How Bias Shapes Our Deepest Beliefs

In recent years, a recurring pattern has emerged in the U.S. political landscape: many supporters of both major political parties tend to see election results as legitimate when their side wins, but when their side loses, allegations of fraud, manipulation, or unfairness often arise. This response is not only significant for its impact on democracy, but it also offers a fascinating window into human psychology and logical fallacies. Examining these tendencies can reveal much about cognitive biases, emotional investment, and even the character-driven dynamics of group identity.

Cognitive Biases: Why Do We Believe What We Want to Be True?

One of the primary psychological forces at play here is confirmation bias. This is the tendency to seek out, interpret, and even remember information in ways that confirm one’s pre-existing beliefs or desires. In an election setting, confirmation bias can manifest when voters only notice “evidence” that seems to align with their hope for a particular outcome while disregarding or downplaying contradictory evidence.

Example: Suppose a person who supports Candidate A hears rumours of “ballot dumping” in a county where Candidate B is leading. Their desire to see Candidate A win may lead them to accept these rumours as plausible, even without concrete proof, because it aligns with the idea that their favoured candidate was unjustly deprived of victory. Similarly, if Candidate A wins, the same person might ignore or dismiss similar allegations from the other side, labelling them as “sore losers.”

Motivated Reasoning: Rationalizing Away the Unwanted Outcome

Closely related to confirmation bias is motivated reasoning, which involves reasoning through information in a way that serves one’s motivations or desires rather than objective facts. When it comes to election results, motivated reasoning allows individuals to maintain their support for a preferred outcome by selectively interpreting evidence to fit a desired conclusion. If the result isn’t what they hoped for, they may automatically jump to explanations of fraud or cheating to protect their belief that their candidate or party is “really” favoured by the public.

This also helps explain why accusations of fraud often persist despite multiple fact-checks, recounts, or legal rulings showing no significant evidence of irregularities. People aren’t necessarily evaluating the evidence dispassionately—they are reasoning in ways that protect their emotional attachment to the outcome they prefer.

Group Identity and Ingroup vs. Outgroup Thinking

Elections aren’t just about policies or leaders—they’re deeply tied to identity and belonging. When people strongly identify with a political party, its success or failure feels personal. Losing an election can feel like a rejection of one’s beliefs, values, and even sense of self. To cope with this, some voters look for explanations that externalize the problem: rather than accepting that a majority of voters disagreed with them, they might claim that an external force—like “the system” or “the media”—has conspired against them.

This form of ingroup vs. outgroup thinking fosters a worldview in which one’s own group (or candidate) is always “right” and the opposing side is always “wrong.” When the ingroup loses, the outcome may be seen not as a legitimate reflection of the people’s will but as a hostile act by an outgroup that, in their view, doesn’t play fair. The desire to protect one’s group and its “rightness” often fuels the rejection of election results.

Logical Fallacies: Common Errors in Election-Based Thinking

Several logical fallacies can appear when individuals attempt to rationalize why an election result didn’t go their way. Some of the most common include:

• Appeal to Emotion: Rather than relying on facts, arguments about election fraud often play on fear, anger, or loyalty to sway opinions. Politicians or commentators may suggest that losing means the other side has “stolen” something precious, pushing an emotionally charged narrative rather than evidence-based reasoning.
• Ad Hominem: This involves attacking the character of those who present contrary evidence (e.g., election officials or media outlets) instead of addressing the evidence itself. A supporter might claim that certain news sources or election officials are “biased” without engaging with the data, dismissing any reports that don’t support their viewpoint.
• False Dilemma: Many assume that if their preferred candidate didn’t win, then cheating must be involved, as if these are the only two possibilities. This ignores the range of complex factors, including shifts in voter demographics, campaign strategies, or changing public opinion.
• Circular Reasoning: Some argue, “We know there was fraud because our candidate lost,” which is a classic case of circular reasoning where the premise assumes the conclusion. This reasoning overlooks any independent evidence or objective assessment of the election process.

What Does This Say About Character?

The recurring tendency to label unfavourable results as fraud points to a deep-seated lack of resilience in accepting disappointment, especially when it involves something as emotionally charged as political beliefs. People with this mindset may be more prone to viewing life through a lens of externalized blame, finding it difficult to accept outcomes that don’t align with their desires. It can also reflect an all-or-nothing approach to thinking, in which ambiguity, compromise, or the possibility of legitimate loss is hard to tolerate.

Character-wise, a mature approach to losing an election would involve resilience, self-reflection, and a willingness to seek understanding of why the result turned out as it did. However, in highly polarized environments, people may feel that accepting a loss would mean abandoning their beliefs or betraying their group. This perspective can reinforce an unwillingness to engage in self-reflection or constructive dialogue.

What Can Be Done?

A culture of understanding, resilience, and acceptance within politics would require a shift toward focusing on shared goals and common values. Media literacy and critical thinking can also help voters differentiate between valid concerns and emotionally charged rhetoric or conspiracy theories. Teaching logical reasoning and how to recognize cognitive biases can encourage a more balanced, less polarized approach to politics.

Encouraging people to see elections as part of a broader, ongoing democratic process—rather than a high-stakes, win-or-lose battle—might foster greater acceptance of both victory and defeat. Ultimately, democracy relies on the ability of individuals to respect outcomes, learn from losses, and continue participating constructively.

Parallels in Religious Beliefs: How Cognitive Biases Impact Biblical Interpretation

Interestingly, the same psychological patterns seen in reactions to election results often appear in religious discussions and interpretations, particularly around debated topics like the Trinity, the Devil, or beliefs about heaven and the afterlife. Just as with political views, people’s interpretations of the Bible can be shaped by biases, cultural conditioning, and emotional investment, sometimes leading them to accept certain beliefs without question and reject others with equal certainty.

Confirmation Bias and Tradition

One of the most notable biases in religious belief is confirmation bias, especially in how traditions influence interpretation. For instance, many Christians grow up learning specific doctrines, like the belief in the Trinity, which isn’t directly named in the Bible but has become central to mainstream Christian theology. For many, this tradition is so ingrained that any scriptural passage that challenges or doesn’t align with it may be dismissed or reinterpreted to fit the doctrine they already believe to be true.

For example, passages where Jesus prays to God or speaks of God as separate from himself are often understood by traditional Trinitarians in ways that maintain the idea of Jesus being one with God. In contrast, non-Trinitarian Christians interpret these passages more literally, seeing Jesus as distinct from God the Father. Here, we see confirmation bias at work: each group tends to interpret the same passages in ways that confirm its prior beliefs rather than re-evaluating the doctrine itself.

Motivated Reasoning and Unseen Realities

The concepts of heaven, hell, and the Devil often involve motivated reasoning, where people rationalize their interpretations based on cultural expectations or what feels comforting. The idea of a heaven where souls go immediately after death, for instance, is comforting to many, reinforcing the belief despite the Bible’s repeated references to resurrection and a future kingdom on earth (such as in 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 21). Likewise, the concept of a personal devil as an external tempter offers a way to externalize evil, which can sometimes help people make sense of the world but may not align with the biblical presentation of “Satan” as a broader concept of opposition and temptation.

Motivated reasoning here reflects a desire for reassurance and simplicity. Beliefs that provide a clear sense of comfort or moral structure can become deeply embedded, even when they don’t align directly with a literal interpretation of Scripture.

Group Identity and Religious Tradition

Just as political group identity shapes people’s reactions to elections, religious group identity can strongly influence interpretations of biblical teachings. Many believers feel a strong sense of belonging within a particular denomination, church, or faith tradition. In such environments, beliefs about the Trinity, heaven, or the Devil are often upheld as defining aspects of faith. Questioning or rejecting these beliefs can feel like a challenge to the entire community and may be seen as betrayal or even heresy. This fear of disrupting group harmony often leads individuals to accept certain teachings without re-evaluating them against Scripture.

For example, someone raised in a church that teaches heaven-going as the ultimate reward may feel a strong emotional pull to accept this belief, even if they come across passages that suggest a future resurrection on earth. The need to fit in with their group can override a desire to investigate the Scriptures independently, just as loyalty to a political party can influence a person’s acceptance or rejection of election results.

Logical Fallacies in Religious Reasoning

Similar logical fallacies can be observed in religious contexts as in political ones:

• Appeal to Tradition: Many religious beliefs are accepted because “this is what the church has always taught,” rather than because they are directly supported by Scripture. This can lead to acceptance of ideas like the Trinity or heaven-going because they are longstanding doctrines, even if they lack clear biblical backing.
• False Dilemma: Some teachings present an “either-or” choice that excludes alternative interpretations. For example, believers may be told they must either believe in a literal, personal devil or deny the existence of evil entirely. This false dilemma ignores other scriptural interpretations, like viewing Satan as a symbol of human opposition to God.
• Ad Hominem: People who question traditional beliefs are sometimes dismissed or criticized personally rather than their questions being addressed openly. They might be labelled as “heretics” or “unbelievers,” rather than their interpretations being examined on their merits.

What This Reveals About Faith and Understanding

These biases and fallacies suggest that, just as in politics, many people’s religious beliefs are closely tied to identity, comfort, and belonging. This need for certainty can sometimes overshadow a willingness to re-evaluate beliefs in light of Scripture. True resilience in faith, however, involves a readiness to seek truth, even if it challenges long-held assumptions or social norms.

In Christadelphian belief, for instance, there is a focus on approaching the Bible with an open mind, regularly re-examining Scripture rather than simply accepting inherited doctrines. This mindset can be challenging, as it asks believers to question and seek truth even when it feels uncomfortable or goes against the prevailing views of mainstream Christianity. Yet, this pursuit is seen as a rewarding journey of discovery, one that deepens both faith and understanding.

Ultimately, approaching Scripture with humility and a commitment to personal growth can lead to a faith that is resilient, thoughtful, and open to the richness of God’s Word. In the same way, accepting both political and religious outcomes, even when they differ from our desires, fosters maturity, character, and a deeper connection to truth.