Loading...
The Semmelweis reflex is a cognitive bias wherein people tend to reject new evidence or knowledge if it contradicts established norms or beliefs. Named after Ignaz Semmelweis, a 19th-century Hungarian physician who discovered that hand-washing could drastically reduce childbed fever incidence, the term describes the tendency to dismiss or undervalue findings that conflict with accepted paradigms.
The Semmelweis reflex occurs when individuals encounter new information that conflicts with their pre-existing beliefs or accepted norms. Instead of objectively analyzing the evidence, individuals instinctively react by defending their current understanding. This reflexive rejection is often driven by discomfort associated with cognitive dissonance—the mental tension that arises from holding contradictory beliefs.
The Semmelweis reflex can lead to the perpetuation of outdated or incorrect information, hinder innovation, and prevent necessary changes or adaptations that could resolve problems or improve situations. In professional or academic contexts, this bias can delay the acceptance and application of beneficial discoveries or practices, adversely affecting progress and decision-making.
To counteract the Semmelweis reflex, individuals and organizations can cultivate an environment that encourages open-mindedness and critical thinking. It helps to foster a culture that values evidence-based reasoning and willingness to adapt beliefs in light of new, credible information. Training in recognizing cognitive biases can also aid individuals in questioning their instinctual reactions to new data.
Critics argue that labeling rejection of new information as a Semmelweis reflex might oversimplify or misinterpret complex decision-making processes. Not all instances of rejected findings can be attributed to cognitive biases; often, new evidence may genuinely lack credibility or fail rigorous examination. Thus, discernment is essential to differentiate between healthy skepticism and unwarranted bias.
On the merits and limitations of subpopulation analyses in observational research
Greenland, S., & O’Rourke, K. (2001)
Statistics in Medicine, 20(23), 3631-3641
The dangers of deducing a causal relationship between brain biology and psychopathic behavior without considering the broader sociocultural context
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Lynn, S. J. (2015)
Psychological Inquiry, 26(3), 219-227