Skip to main content
    Path to Science

    Thinking Dictionary

    Actively open-minded thinking

    What it is

    Actively open-minded thinking is more than just "keeping an open mind." It means:

    • going looking for reasons you might be wrong,
    • taking other explanations seriously,
    • judging evidence by its quality, not by whether you like where it leads, and
    • being clear about what would change your mind.

    The term is associated with the psychologist Jonathan Baron.¹ Psychologists treat it as a disposition: a habit or tendency in how a person thinks, which they can measure with questionnaires.²

    Being open-minded doesn't mean having no firm views. It means holding your views for reasons, and being willing to revise them when the reasons change. And it doesn't mean all views are equal. Judging views fairly often rules some of them out.

    Why it matters

    This way of thinking is linked to better reasoning, beyond plain intelligence. In a study of 349 students, those who scored higher on actively open-minded thinking were better at judging arguments on their quality, rather than on whether they already agreed. This held even after their general thinking ability was taken into account.³

    It is also linked to better estimates. In three studies, researchers compared four traits, including persistence (often called grit). Only actively open-minded thinking predicted how accurate people's estimates were. The reason seemed to be that open-minded thinkers gathered more information before deciding.²

    In a large forecasting tournament, a small group of top forecasters, nicknamed superforecasters, stayed accurate across hundreds of questions about world events. The researchers offered several explanations. One was their thinking abilities and styles.⁴ Open-mindedness may be part of the story, but it isn't the whole explanation.

    A real story: viruses and cancer

    In 1944, according to later accounts, the scientist Sarah Stewart was refused support by the US National Cancer Institute to study whether viruses could cause cancer.⁵˒⁶ The idea was not widely accepted at the time.

    She continued the work. Together with her colleague Bernice Eddy, she later showed that a virus, now called the polyoma virus, could cause many different kinds of tumours in mice.⁷˒⁵

    Stewart was not working alone, and she wasn't the first to find evidence. Other researchers, decades earlier, had reported signs that viruses could cause some cancers. Her story is a good example of evidence slowly overcoming doubt. It shows why it pays to take an unpopular idea seriously enough to test it.

    In everyday life

    • Arguments with friends. Before arguing back, try to state their view in a way they would agree with. Then ask what evidence would change your own mind.
    • News. Read a respected source that leans the other way from your usual ones, and judge its evidence on its merits.
    • Big decisions. Before buying a car or taking a job, look deliberately for the strongest reasons not to.

    The common trap

    The trap is thinking you are open-minded because you feel open-minded. Real open-mindedness takes action: looking for the evidence against you.

    Some ways out:

    • Consider the opposite. Ask: "What would I expect to see if I were wrong?" This is the best-tested tip in the Confirmation bias entry.
    • Name your "change-my-mind" evidence. If nothing could change your mind, ask why.
    • Steelman. Describe the other side's view at its strongest. This is sensible advice, but it hasn't been directly tested.

    Whether training can make people more open-minded over the long term is less clear.

    Try it

    Pick an opinion you hold fairly strongly. Write down three things:

    1. The best evidence for your view.
    2. The best evidence against it, from a source the other side respects.
    3. One specific finding that would make you change your mind.

    If you can't write the third one, ask yourself why.

    Related concepts

    Confirmation bias · Iteration · Probabilistic reasoning · Fast and slow thinking · Credible sources · Cognitive shortcuts · Falsifiability · Motivated reasoning

    Sources

    1. Baron, J. (1993). Why teach thinking? An essay. Applied Psychology, 42(3), 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1993.tb00731.x

    2. Haran, U., Ritov, I., & Mellers, B. A. (2013). The role of actively open-minded thinking in information acquisition, accuracy, and calibration. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(3), 188–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500005921

    3. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1997). Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 342–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.342

    4. Mellers, B., Stone, E., Murray, T., Minster, A., Rohrbaugh, N., Bishop, M., Chen, E., Baker, J., et al. (2015). Identifying and cultivating superforecasters as a method of improving probabilistic predictions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(3), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615577794

    5. U.S. National Library of Medicine. (n.d.). Sarah E. Stewart papers (finding aid). https://findingaids.nlm.nih.gov/repositories/ammp/resources/stewart360

    6. McNeill, L. (2019, June 17). The woman who revealed the missing link between viruses and cancer. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/woman-who-revealed-missing-link-between-viruses-and-cancer-180972427/

    7. Stewart, S. E., Eddy, B. E., & Borgese, N. (1958). Neoplasms in mice inoculated with a tumor agent carried in tissue culture. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 20(6), 1223–1243. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/20.6.1223