Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Why It's Hard to Change People's Minds

By Sean Gonsalves, AlterNet. Posted October 7, 2008.


A new study shows that after being exposed to information contradicting their ideas, most people still cling to their prejudices.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Atheism and Diversity: Is It Wrong For Atheists To Convert Believers?
Greta Christina

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Don't Fear the Deficit Bogeyman
John Miller

DrugReporter:
The War on Weed: Marijuana Is Basically Harmless -- The Monumentally Stupid Drug War Is Not
Jim Hightower

Environment:
White House Garden Won't Make Up for Obama's Nomination of Pesticide Lobbyist for US Chief Agriculture Negotiator
Jill Richardson

Food:
Don't Be Scared of Food: Are We Being Needlessly Hysterical About Food Safety?
David E. Gumpert

Health and Wellness:
47,000 Women Could Die As a Result of the New Mammogram Guidelines
George Lakoff

Immigration:
Republican Playbook on Immigration Debate Long on Emotions, Short on Facts
Mary Giovagnoli

Media and Technology:
The Memory Scrub About Why Ft. Hood Happened Is Almost Complete ... If It Weren't for Archives
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
Disney Apocalypse: Why 2012 Sucks
Alexander Zaitchik

Politics:
White House's Ties to Health Care Industry Deeper Than Visitor Records Show
Daniela Perdomo

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Why Can't We Look Away From Sarah Palin?
Vanessa Richmond

Rights and Liberties:
Whatever Happened to the CIA Black Sites?
David Corn

Sex and Relationships:
Hot Mormon Muffins and Models for Jesus: What's With All the Sexy Christians?
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Poseidon's Financial Shell Game: Why Is a Private Desalination Plant Asking for Public Money?
Peter Gleick

World:
Is Obama Following in the Footsteps of Bill Clinton?
Jeff Cohen

More stories by Sean Gonsalves

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

A long time ago, Mark Twain told us: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

Entwined in Twain's train of thought, is an implicit -- and important -- distinction: the difference between being uninformed and being misinformed.

Today, there's scholarship to back up Twain's theory that being ignorant isn't as troublesome as being certain about something that "just ain't so."

Ignorance can be educated. But what's the antidote to misinformation? Correct information?

Not exactly -- according to political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler, co-authors of one of the few academic studies on the subject, "When Corrections Fail: The persistence of political misperceptions."

While it may seem like common sense to think misinformation can be countered by giving people the real 411, Nyhan and Reifler's research indicates that correct information often fails to reduce misperceptions among the ideologically-committed, particularly doctrinaire conservatives.

That's something many readers of this column understand intuitively after having seen false claims like Obama-is-a-Muslim refuted over and over again and yet, unbelievably, somehow manages to persist.

There's lots of research on citizen ignorance but there's only a handful of studies that focus on misinformation and the effect it has on political opinions. Nyhan and Reifler's work adds to what Yale University political scientist Robert Bullock has found: it's possible to correct and change misinformed political opinions, but the truth (small 't') ain't enough.

In Bullock's experimental study, participants were shown the transcript for an ad created by a pro-choice group opposing the Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts. The ad falsely accused Roberts of "supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber."

What Bullock found was that 56 percent of the Democratic participants disapproved of Roberts before hearing the misinformation. After seeing the attack ad, it jumped to 80 percent.

When they were shown an ad that refuted the misinformation and were also told the pro-choice group had withdrawn the original ad, the disapproval rating didn't drop back down to 56 percent but to 72 percent.

Nyhan and Reifler conducted a series of studies where subjects were presented with mock news articles on "hot button" issues that included demonstrably false assertions like: Iraq possessed WMD immediately before the U.S. invasion. Tax cuts lead to economic growth. Bush banned stem cell research, as Sens. Kerry and Kennedy claimed during the 2004 presidential campaign.

With the Iraq-possessed-WMD-immediately-before-the-invasion assertion, participants were shown mock news articles supporting the unfounded Bush administration claim and then provided the refutation by way of the Duelfer Report, which authoritatively details the documented lack of WMD, or even an active production program, in Iraq just before the invasion.

But instead of changing the minds of ideologically-committed war-backers, Nyhan and Reifler found a "backfire effect," in which Iraq invasion-supporters only slightly modified their view without letting go of the misinformation by saying "Saddam Hussein was able to hide or destroy these weapons right before U.S. forces arrived." Sigh.

Nyhan and Reifler attribute that kind of "thinking" to the affects of "motivated reasoning," which can distort how people process information.

"As a result (of motivated reasoning), the corrections fail to reduce misperceptions for the most committed participants. Even worse, they actually strengthen misperceptions among ideological subgroups."

Now you know why those back-and-forth on-line debates so often prove to be fruitless. Unfortunately, neither Bullock, Nyhan, or Reifler suggest a way to successfully counter misinformation clung to by those who hold their political opinions with an air of certitude.

Washington Post columnist Shankar Vedantam suggests wrapping refutations in language that enhances the self-esteem of the misinformed.

Whatever you do, just don't forget Twain's timeless advice: "tell the truth or trump -- but get the trick."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: misinformation, bias

Sean Gonsalves is a syndicated columnist and news editor with the Cape Cod Times.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

You've chosen to turn comments off for the entire site. Would you like to turn them back on?
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement