Posted on 04/05/2007 9:17:53 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
ABSTRACT:
We propose a model of motivated skepticism that helps explain when, how, why and under what conditions citizens are prone to be biased political information processors. We report the results of two experimental studies that explore how citizens evaluate arguments about two political issues – affirmative action and gun control – to test hypotheses predicting motivated reasoning. As predicted, in situations where participants (Ps) are presented with a balanced set of pro and con arguments, we find strong evidence of a prior attitude effect such attitudinally congruent arguments are evaluated as stronger than attitudinally incongruent arguments. When reading the pro and con arguments, Ps counter argue the contrary arguments and uncritically bolster supporting arguments, evidence of a disconfirmation bias. We also find a confirmation bias – the seeking out of confirmatory evidence – when Ps are free to self-select the source of the arguments they read. Both the confirmation and disconfirmation biases lead to attitude polarization – the strengthening of their t2 over t1 attitude – especially among those with the strongest priors and highest level of political sophistication. We conclude with a discussion of the normative implications of these findings for rational behavior in a democracy.
(Excerpt) Read more at sunysb.edu ...
"Skepticism is valuable and attitudes should have inertia (note that a simple anchoring and adjustment model gives prior beliefs added weight). But skepticism becomes bias when it becomes unreasonably resistant to change and especially when it leads one to avoid information as with the confirmation bias. And polarization seems to us difficult to square with a normatively acceptable model (especially since the supporters and opponents in the policy debate will diverge after processing exactly the same information). Moreover, up to some tipping point for persuasion, our model predicts polarization even from unbalanced and counter-attitudinal streams of information (see also Rahn, Aldrich & Borgida, 1993; Redlawsk, 2002).
"How we determine the boundary line between rational skepticism and irrational bias is a critical normative question, but one that empirical research may not be able to address. Research can explore the conditions under which persuasion occurs (as social psychologists have for decades), but it cannot establish the conditions under which it should occur. It is, of course, the latter question that needs answering if we are to resolve the controversy over the rationality of motivated reasoning."
Authors are with the Department of Political Science at Stony Brook University (SUNY).
sophisticated respondents selected arguments from like-minded groups 70-75% of the time. For example, on average sophisticated opponents of stricter gun control sought out 6 arguments of the NRA or the Republican Party and only 2 arguments from the partisan opposition. Table 2 presents the results from a regression of this bias measure on t1 attitude extremity for both studies and both issues. The results are straightforward and confirm the pattern in Figure 5: Ps were more likely to read the argument of a sympathetic source than to expose themselves to an opposing point of view. Supporters of gun control or affirmative action were significantly more likely to search out the arguments of “their” issue groups (e.g., Citizens Against Handguns or the NAACP).
Without a detailed reading of the whole report, it does appear they are showing the 'closed-minded' rightwing is actaully more open to hearing the other side of the arguement, whereas the 'opened minded' leftwing has no interest in the other side of the arguement and perfer to remain ignorant of facts that counter their position.
But the overarching question implied here, is whether public participation in seeking policy solutions through consensus is valid in terms of finding effective and beneficial outcomes.
The tendency of their argument seems to me to be to disqualify the public on grounds of bias from participation in policymaking.
It's the old attack on citizen rights in the name of getting it right. An upscale version of making the trains run on time.
Or do I oversimplify?
That is true. But really, no amount of additional information can overcome the belief that abortion is murder. Once you believe that, all other information is pretty worthless.
Which is a strange argument, since a policymakers would have the same biases. At least with a democratic consensus the debate is opened up and the arguments have to appear rational to the majority of people. When you get into a small group of people making decisions behind closed doors is when you get the worst results that fail any test of rationality.
List of Questions You Will Never
See the Media Ask Democrats
During the Mid Term Debates
http://allegianceanddutybetrayed.blogspot.com/search?q=chris+donohoe
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.