Why political misperceptions persist, even against the evidence
Every few years, people in democratic countries get the chance to vote and elect a new government. Voters must decide which of several different policy approaches they agree with. Should the budget deficit be cut by increasing taxes or by cutting public expenditure? What is the best way to recover from recession? How can we choose when even expert economists do not agree?
Recently, there has been much research, particularly in the United States, on the factors which influence our views, and how we deal with the complex information we receive from the news media. Take, for example, Americans' attitudes to the Iraq war. Many have misperceptions, and these appear to be highly related to their degree of support for the war.
In the US in 2003, from January through to September, seven different polls about the War were carried out, surveying 9,611 people. A majority of those polled believed one or more falsehoods about the war. For example, 48% believed -incorrectly- that evidence had been found for links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, 22% believed that weapons of mass destruction had been discovered in Iraq, and 25% thought that world public opinion favoured the US invasion of Iraq. Of the people who had none of these misperceptions, only 23% supported the war; while 53% of those holding one misperception supported the conflict. The proportion rises to 86% in favor of the war among people who held all three misperceptions.
Could these people be simply ignorant of current affairs? No, the study showed that people who were not much interested in the news were no more likely to have misperceptions than those who paid most attention. Perhaps they were being fed mis-information? Possibly; those who paid most attention to the right wing TV news channel, Fox TV, had the greatest number of misperceptions, and people who got their news from newspapers held fewer false ideas. As one might expect, supporters of President Bush and the Republican party demonstrated the most false beliefs about the war and its causes.
Surely, telling people the true facts will clear up false ideas?
Not necessarily. Human beings have a tendency to seek and find evidence which supports beliefs we already hold and to ignore and even disparage evidence to the contrary. This behaviour has been noticed and remarked upon by writers throughout history. Today, psychologists call it "confirmation bias", and its effect on our views of politics is far reaching.
US Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler carried out a series of studies over several years on the question of how opinions are formed and confirmed. They gave participants factually incorrect newspaper articles, and then judged their opinions by questionnaire. Next they had them read an authoritative article that corrected the false information, and followed with a second test of their opinion.
The researchers found that the strength of the subjects' political bias affected how they dealt with the corrected information. If they sympathised strongly with the initial message, then the correction either failed to change their misperception, or, worse still, it actually reinforced it, entrenching their wrong perception even deeper. This has been dubbed the "backfire effect".
A classic example of the backfire effect is the myth that President Obama was not born in the US. It continues to persist, even though his birth certificate and supporting documents have been made public and examined in minute detail. An opinion poll carried out in July 2009 found that 77% of those polled believed that Obama was born in the US, while 11% didn't, and 12% were unsure. However, Republicans and Southerners were far more likely than other political or demographic groups to doubt that Obama was born in the US. An overwhelming majority of Democrats (93%) and independents (83%) believed that Obama was born in the US, while only 42% of Republicans believed it. By December 2008, at least 17 law suits had been filed challenging Obama's elegibility to stand as President.
Note: Such myths arise on both political wings. A poll conducted in 2006 showed that more than a third of the American public believed that the Bush Government assisted in, or took no action to stop the 9/11 attacks, so that the US could go to war in the Middle East.
Why do people cling so tightly to such ideas? Is it only because of bias in the media? Or is it something more fundamental?
Indeed, it may be more fundamental. The way our brains process these types of information seem to have more to do with emotion than with reasoning. During the run-up to the 2004 US election, brain scans were carried out on 30 men, comprised of 15 staunch Republicans and 15 strong Democrats, while they were assessing statements made by Republican Presidential candidate, George W. Bush, and his Democratic counterpart, John Kerry. The selected statements from both men were clearly self-contradictory. Republicans were alert to Kerry's contradictions, and Democrats homed in on Bush's inconsistancies. Both groups tended to let their own candidate off the hook.
The brain scans showed that while the readers were assessing the candidates' statements, the parts of the brain involved with emotions and conflict resolution were the most active. The areas concerned with reasoning were effectively shut down. Once the subjects had arrived at a conclusion which made them emotionally comfortable, the brain area related to reward and pleasure fired up. It looked as though they were desperately sifting through what they heard until they found what they wanted, and then they got a boost of positive feelings. This whole process seems to work beyond conscious control.
Can this effect be negated? We could try to have more balanced, informed debate. However, if the above research results are correct, this is unlikely to make any difference. No matter how balanced the debate, it appears that people selectively place weight on arguments they agree with, ignoring the counter arguments. Thus TV debates, designed to enlighten, may actually help to polarise opinion.
Neither is there evidence that naming and shaming people who spread false stories makes any difference. In a radio interview, Nyhan suggests that an authoritarian denial from a strong source might help (a denial from someone important from your own side). Perhaps another approach would be to use satire. He appeared to be at a loss....
As Michael Shermer points out, the implications go far beyond politics. Think of a jury assessing evidence against a defendant; a business leader evaluating a company; an investor deciding where to invest his capital; a scientist weighing data in favour of a theory. At least in science there are double-blind controls, vetting of research papers and the discussion of contradictory evidence is encouraged. No such rules govern politicians.
It is likely there is no "cure" for confirmation bias. It is as deep seated in our emotional make-up as falling in love. Perhaps, just knowing it exists will help us to make a special effort to see the other point of view; to be more pragmatic and less dogmatic. Nevertheless, there will always be some who find it emotionally impossible to accept a truth which conflicts with their dearly held ideology.
by Christine Betterton Jones - BSc. (Zoology), PhD (Parasitology)
_____________________________
Bibliography
How cognitive biases affect our interpretation of political messages
British Medical Journal, April 2010
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/apr27_1/c2276
Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly Related to Support for War
World Public Opinion.org 2003
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php
When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions
Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler, Springer Science+Business Media, March 30th 2010
http://www.springerlink.com/content/064786861r21m257/fulltext.html
The Political Brain
Michael Shermer. Scientific American July 2006
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-political-brain
New Poll: Less Than Half Of Republicans Believe Obama Was Born In U.S.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/31/new-poll-less-than-half-o_n_248470.html
Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy
Scripps News 2006
http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll
