The Impact of Subjective Interoceptive Accuracy on Opinion Change: How Exposure to Opposing Views Influences Perceptions of Events
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62051/ijsspa.v7n1.16Keywords:
Interoceptive Accuracy, Opinion Change, Cognitive Flexibility, Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA), PolarizationAbstract
This research examines the connection between subjective interoceptive accuracy and the tendency to maintain or alter opinions when individuals were confronted with opposing views. We proposed that individuals exhibiting higher interoceptive accuracy would be less inclined to change their opinions. Surprisingly, our findings did not reveal a significant association between interoceptive accuracy and the extent of opinion change. Notably, however, we identified a moderate association between an increased sensitivity to internal bodily signals-as indexed by the Noticing subscale of the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA-N)-and a higher likelihood of opinion change. This observation implies that individuals who are more attuned to their internal bodily signals might also be more adaptable in revising their perspectives when exposed to contradictory viewpoints. Overall, these results enhance our understanding of interoceptive accuracy and attitude shifting, highlighting the intricate interplay between bodily sensations and higher-order cognitive processes.
Downloads
References
[1] Bail, Christopher A., et al. “Exposure to Opposing Views on Social Media Can Increase Political Polarization.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115, no. 37, 28 Aug. 2018, pp. 9216–9221, www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1804840115, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115.
[2] Dunn, Barnaby, et al. “Psychological Science Listening to Your Heart : How Interoception Shapes Emotion Experience and Intuitive Decision Making on Behalf Of: Association for Psychological Science.” Psychological Science, vol. 21, no. 12, 2010, www.overcominghateportal.org/uploads/5/4/1/5/5415260/interoception_shapes_emotion_and_intuitive_decisions.pdf, https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610389191.
[3] Kubin, Emily, and Christian von Sikorski. “The Role of (Social) Media in Political Polarization: A Systematic Review.” Annals of the International Communication Association, vol. 45, no. 3, 3 July 2021, pp. 188–206, academic.oup.com/anncom/article/45/3/188/7912664, https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1976070.
[4] Ruisch, Benjamin C, et al. “Sensitive Liberals and Unfeeling Conservatives? Interoceptive Sensitivity Predicts Political Liberalism.” Politics and the Life Sciences, vol. 41, no. 2, 1 Jan. 2022, pp. 256–275, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36880547/, https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2022.18.
[5] Desmedt, Olivier, et al. “The New Measures of Interoceptive Accuracy: A Systematic Review and Assessment.” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, vol. 153, 12 Sept. 2023, pp. 105388–105388, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763423003573?dgcid=api_sd_search-api-endpoint, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105388.
[6] Mehling, Wolf E, et al. “The Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness, Version 2 (MAIA-2).” PLoS ONE, vol. 13, no. 12, 4 Dec. 2018, pp. e0208034–e0208034, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6279042/, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208034.
[7] Murphy, Jennifer, et al. “Testing the Independence of Self-Reported Interoceptive Accuracy and Attention.” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 73, no. 1, 10 Oct. 2019, pp. 115–133, https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819879826.
[8] Brewer, Rebecca, et al. “Alexithymia: A General Deficit of Interoception.” Royal Society Open Science, vol. 3, no. 10, Oct. 2016, p. 150664, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150664.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 International Journal of Social Sciences and Public Administration

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.