Makes me want to cry. And stab teachers. But mostly cry.

[theweaselking]

Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse.

A similar "backfire effect" also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue. One group was offered a refutation by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it; 67 percent of those provided with both assertion and refutation believed that tax cuts increase revenue.
===========================
Source

Comments

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Nothing's changed, man.

[wherever.livejournal.com]

This seems to be the conservative mindset. "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts." I think at this point they're used to just believing what they want to despite all indications to the contrary. The more ridiculous their beliefs become, the tighter they hold on to them.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Has anyone tried a comparable test on liberals?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

FTFA:

In experiments conducted by political scientist John Bullock at Yale University, volunteers were given various items of political misinformation from real life. One group of volunteers was shown a transcript of an ad created by NARAL Pro-Choice America that accused John G. Roberts Jr., President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court at the time, of "supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber."

A variety of psychological experiments have shown that political misinformation primarily works by feeding into people's preexisting views. People who did not like Roberts to begin with, then, ought to have been most receptive to the damaging allegation, and this is exactly what Bullock found. Democrats were far more likely than Republicans to disapprove of Roberts after hearing the allegation.

Bullock then showed volunteers a refutation of the ad by abortion-rights supporters. He also told the volunteers that the advocacy group had withdrawn the ad. Although 56 percent of Democrats had originally disapproved of Roberts before hearing the misinformation, 80 percent of Democrats disapproved of the Supreme Court nominee afterward. Upon hearing the refutation, Democratic disapproval of Roberts dropped only to 72 percent.

Republican disapproval of Roberts rose after hearing the misinformation but vanished upon hearing the correct information. The damaging charge, in other words, continued to have an effect even after it was debunked among precisely those people predisposed to buy the bad information in the first place.

Bullock found a similar effect when it came to misinformation about abuses at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Volunteers were shown a Newsweek report that suggested a Koran had been flushed down a toilet, followed by a retraction by the magazine. Where 56 percent of Democrats had disapproved of detainee treatment before they were misinformed about the Koran incident, 78 percent disapproved afterward. Upon hearing the refutation, Democratic disapproval dropped back only to 68 percent -- showing that misinformation continued to affect the attitudes of Democrats even after they knew the information was false.

Short version: While Democrats believe the worst, the authoritative refutation reduces their belief. For Republicans, authoritatice refutation consistently *increases* belief.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Because Democrats lack conviction. That's why they'd sell America out to al Qaeda in a millisecond.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

It's worth noting: The Newsweek story about flushing the Koran wasn't "retracted" in the sense that they admitted it wasn't true. It was "retracted" in that they said they could no longer prove it as the witness had recanted in fear of his life from his fellow guards.

I'm just sayin'.

[springheel-jack.livejournal.com]

> the authoritative refutation reduces their belief

It reduces it a little. Not as much as it should if Dems were rational and Repubs irrational, as seems to be the thesis. I suspect if you control for the usual variables that separate the parties, like economic and educational attainment, both of which are slightly more common among democrats, you'd find out that it's not party affiliation per se - or even the disposition toward one or the other - that's causing this. It's just more evidence that people are generally stupid unless they're carefully taught not to be, and even then they're still pretty stupid. Or in more neutral language, the human brain is prone to certain general errors in reasoning that are only partially liable to correction.

Unless it's Church. It could be Church.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

It reduces it a little.

Yes. Whereas with Republicans, conclusively and decisively proving them wrong makes them *more* likely to believe, not less.

[springheel-jack.livejournal.com]

I'm less convinced that difference is a big difference, because the spread's not that huge, or at least I can't tell if it is. I'm still wondering how much it's affected by other variables. There's a piece of information missing in how the WaPo reported the Republican data, for example - there's supposed to be three numbers, belief before information, belief after confirming but wrong information, and belief after disconfirming, correct information. The middle bit is missing in the example given about the Iraq weapons, or they've conflated it or something, so one can't say that belief among republicans doubled after reading the "liberal truth". The reporting, in other words, is sloppy. Where's the original study? One would have to look over the original tables to see how strongly asymmetric this effect really is, and to see what other variables they controlled for in the analysis and in the experiment design. Right now this looks like pretty much a shit study.

[teddywilson.livejournal.com]

This sounds less political theory and more psychological theory...
It is the same reason people watch or listen to certain news or commentary programs, they do not want to actually learn new information or be challenge but have their views reinforced.

[plantyhamchuk.livejournal.com]

Bingo

[dreamshade.livejournal.com]

The implication, however, is that the liberals did not react the same way, even when told a lie that they wanted to believe.

[ryusen.livejournal.com]

news flash: fanatics are rarely swayed by facts... yes this is really shocking.

[fearmeforiampink]

The point isn't that they're refusing to believe in what they're told, it's that refuting what they're told makes them more likely to believe it.

So no, they're swayed by more by that which is later described to them as lies than that which is left unchallenged.

[rosethornn.livejournal.com]

Why stab teachers? I think stuff like this is far more likely to come from the parents. Teachers can only work with what they're given, and for a comparatively small amount of time.