How facts backfire

[Linus]

Interesting article that I think may be worthwhile for us to consider. It does explain Fox News et al. But also explains the effect of debate online to a degree.

I bolded and blued the interesting bits.

It’s one of the great assumptions underlying modern democracy that an informed citizenry is preferable to an uninformed one. “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789. This notion, carried down through the years, underlies everything from humble political pamphlets to presidential debates to the very notion of a free press. Mankind may be crooked timber, as Kant put it, uniquely susceptible to ignorance and misinformation, but it’s an article of faith that knowledge is the best remedy. If people are furnished with the facts, they will be clearer thinkers and better citizens. If they are ignorant, facts will enlighten them. If they are mistaken, facts will set them straight.

In the end, truth will out. Won’t it?

Maybe not. Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

This bodes ill for a democracy, because most voters — the people making decisions about how the country runs — aren’t blank slates. They already have beliefs, and a set of facts lodged in their minds. The problem is that sometimes the things they think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very, very differently than the merely uninformed. Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper.

“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”

These findings open a long-running argument about the political ignorance of American citizens to broader questions about the interplay between the nature of human intelligence and our democratic ideals. Most of us like to believe that our opinions have been formed over time by careful, rational consideration of facts and ideas, and that the decisions based on those opinions, therefore, have the ring of soundness and intelligence. In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information. And then we vote.

This effect is only heightened by the information glut, which offers — alongside an unprecedented amount of good information — endless rumors, misinformation, and questionable variations on the truth. In other words, it’s never been easier for people to be wrong, and at the same time feel more certain that they’re right.

“Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be,” read a recent Onion headline. Like the best satire, this nasty little gem elicits a laugh, which is then promptly muffled by the queasy feeling of recognition. The last five decades of political science have definitively established that most modern-day Americans lack even a basic understanding of how their country works. In 1996, Princeton University’s Larry M. Bartels argued, “the political ignorance of the American voter is one of the best documented data in political science.”

On its own, this might not be a problem: People ignorant of the facts could simply choose not to vote. But instead, it appears that misinformed people often have some of the strongest political opinions. A striking recent example was a study done in the year 2000, led by James Kuklinski of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He led an influential experiment in which more than 1,000 Illinois residents were asked questions about welfare — the percentage of the federal budget spent on welfare, the number of people enrolled in the program, the percentage of enrollees who are black, and the average payout. More than half indicated that they were confident that their answers were correct — but in fact only 3 percent of the people got more than half of the questions right. Perhaps more disturbingly, the ones who were the most confident they were right were by and large the ones who knew the least about the topic. (Most of these participants expressed views that suggested a strong antiwelfare bias.)

Studies by other researchers have observed similar phenomena when addressing education, health care reform, immigration, affirmative action, gun control, and other issues that tend to attract strong partisan opinion. Kuklinski calls this sort of response the “I know I’m right” syndrome, and considers it a “potentially formidable problem” in a democratic system. “It implies not only that most people will resist correcting their factual beliefs,” he wrote, “but also that the very people who most need to correct them will be least likely to do so.”

What’s going on? How can we have things so wrong, and be so sure that we’re right? Part of the answer lies in the way our brains are wired. Generally, people tend to seek consistency. There is a substantial body of psychological research showing that people tend to interpret information with an eye toward reinforcing their preexisting views. If we believe something about the world, we are more likely to passively accept as truth any information that confirms our beliefs, and actively dismiss information that doesn’t. This is known as “motivated reasoning.” Whether or not the consistent information is accurate, we might accept it as fact, as confirmation of our beliefs. This makes us more confident in said beliefs, and even less likely to entertain facts that contradict them.

New research, published in the journal Political Behavior last month, suggests that once those facts — or “facts” — are internalized, they are very difficult to budge. In 2005, amid the strident calls for better media fact-checking in the wake of the Iraq war, Michigan’s Nyhan and a colleague devised an experiment in which participants were given mock news stories, each of which contained a provably false, though nonetheless widespread, claim made by a political figure: that there were WMDs found in Iraq (there weren’t), that the Bush tax cuts increased government revenues (revenues actually fell), and that the Bush administration imposed a total ban on stem cell research (only certain federal funding was restricted). Nyhan inserted a clear, direct correction after each piece of misinformation, and then measured the study participants to see if the correction took.

For the most part, it didn’t. The participants who self-identified as conservative believed the misinformation on WMD and taxes even more strongly after being given the correction. With those two issues, the more strongly the participant cared about the topic — a factor known as salience — the stronger the backfire. The effect was slightly different on self-identified liberals: When they read corrected stories about stem cells, the corrections didn’t backfire, but the readers did still ignore the inconvenient fact that the Bush administration’s restrictions weren’t total.
It’s unclear what is driving the behavior — it could range from simple defensiveness, to people working harder to defend their initial beliefs — but as Nyhan dryly put it, “It’s hard to be optimistic about the effectiveness of fact-checking.”

It would be reassuring to think that political scientists and psychologists have come up with a way to counter this problem, but that would be getting ahead of ourselves. The persistence of political misperceptions remains a young field of inquiry. “It’s very much up in the air,” says Nyhan.
But researchers are working on it. One avenue may involve self-esteem. Nyhan worked on one study in which he showed that people who were given a self-affirmation exercise were more likely to consider new information than people who had not. In other words, if you feel good about yourself, you’ll listen — and if you feel insecure or threatened, you won’t. This would also explain why demagogues benefit from keeping people agitated. The more threatened people feel, the less likely they are to listen to dissenting opinions, and the more easily controlled they are.

There are also some cases where directness works. Kuklinski’s welfare study suggested that people will actually update their beliefs if you hit them “between the eyes” with bluntly presented, objective facts that contradict their preconceived ideas. He asked one group of participants what percentage of its budget they believed the federal government spent on welfare, and what percentage they believed the government should spend. Another group was given the same questions, but the second group was immediately told the correct percentage the government spends on welfare (1 percent). They were then asked, with that in mind, what the government should spend. Regardless of how wrong they had been before receiving the information, the second group indeed adjusted their answer to reflect the correct fact.

Kuklinski’s study, however, involved people getting information directly from researchers in a highly interactive way. When Nyhan attempted to deliver the correction in a more real-world fashion, via a news article, it backfired. Even if people do accept the new information, it might not stick over the long term, or it may just have no effect on their opinions. In 2007 John Sides of George Washington University and Jack Citrin of the University of California at Berkeley studied whether providing misled people with correct information about the proportion of immigrants in the US population would affect their views on immigration. It did not.

And if you harbor the notion — popular on both sides of the aisle — that the solution is more education and a higher level of political sophistication in voters overall, well, that’s a start, but not the solution. A 2006 study by Charles Taber and Milton Lodge at Stony Brook University showed that politically sophisticated thinkers were even less open to new information than less sophisticated types. These people may be factually right about 90 percent of things, but their confidence makes it nearly impossible to correct the 10 percent on which they’re totally wrong. Taber and Lodge found this alarming, because engaged, sophisticated thinkers are “the very folks on whom democratic theory relies most heavily.”

In an ideal world, citizens would be able to maintain constant vigilance, monitoring both the information they receive and the way their brains are processing it. But keeping atop the news takes time and effort. And relentless self-questioning, as centuries of philosophers have shown, can be exhausting. Our brains are designed to create cognitive shortcuts — inference, intuition, and so forth — to avoid precisely that sort of discomfort while coping with the rush of information we receive on a daily basis. Without those shortcuts, few things would ever get done.

Unfortunately, with them, we’re easily suckered by political falsehoods. Nyhan ultimately recommends a supply-side approach. Instead of focusing on citizens and consumers of misinformation, he suggests looking at the sources. If you increase the “reputational costs” of peddling bad info, he suggests, you might discourage people from doing it so often. “So if you go on ‘Meet the Press’ and you get hammered for saying something misleading,” he says, “you’d think twice before you go and do it again.”

Unfortunately, this shame-based solution may be as implausible as it is sensible. Fast-talking political pundits have ascended to the realm of highly lucrative popular entertainment, while professional fact-checking operations languish in the dungeons of wonkery. Getting a politician or pundit to argue straight-faced that George W. Bush ordered 9/11, or that Barack Obama is the culmination of a five-decade plot by the government of Kenya to destroy the United States — that’s easy. Getting him to register shame? That isn’t.


Joe Keohane is a writer in New York

[Gemme]

People's opionions are a fragment of their self as they know it. The more you try to change their view, the more it feels as if someone is trying to change *them*.

This doesn't surprise me in the least.

[Linus]

Originally Posted by Gemme

People's opionions are a fragment of their self as they know it. The more you try to change their view, the more it feels as if someone is trying to change *them*.

This doesn't surprise me in the least.

If that is true, how do we evolve beyond where we are? I used to play a game called Pyroto (it was the web version of the BBS game Pyroto Mountain). The game itself was a social experiment based on these facts and the hypothesis that people only change their opinion/view if something major happens.

I can attest to this being a true statement in my own experience. Prior to my mom's death I was a card carrying conservative (was a member of the Progressive Conservatives). Today, I'm on the farther left and would be classified (in Canadian terms) as either Liberal or NDP, perhaps Socialist.

So while I do agree that it's not surprising in many ways, knowing this info, how do we get those that refuse to see the facts (for whatever reason) to see them?

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Linus

It’s one of the great assumptions underlying modern democracy that an informed citizenry is preferable to an uninformed one. “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789. This notion, carried down through the years, underlies everything from humble political pamphlets to presidential debates to the very notion of a free press. Mankind may be crooked timber, as Kant put it, uniquely susceptible to ignorance and misinformation, but it’s an article of faith that knowledge is the best remedy. If people are furnished with the facts, they will be clearer thinkers and better citizens. If they are ignorant, facts will enlighten them. If they are mistaken, facts will set them straight.

We live in an age of information, and because of that many people believe that we are that much more capable of making thought out decisions than our ancestors. I would argue this is not true. The act of simply holding information does not make one knowledgeable or intelligent. Particularly in the humanities there's been great deal of talk over the definition of knowledge and the notion that information does not equate knowledge. People today are being bombarded with information left, right and centre, and it's fairly easy to read about nearly anything and everything. But what isn't being put into practice is the ability to process that information, which is far more important than simply being aware of it. I believe that this can be taught, the problem being that most people are not willing to forget their own perspective. It's scary to them, and works very well in the favour of politicians. Overall, I agree with the article.

I do agree with Gemme that most people perceive their beliefs as fragments of themselves, but I think that perception is wrong.

I'll elaborate more later, gotta run to work.

[Soft*Silver]

I was part of the team that was establishing the first housing complex for people living with AIDS. We sent out fact sheets to the neighborhood and held press conferences and public meetings and had Drs and health commissioners present and yet, the more we gave them, the more hysterical their response became.

The problem was US, not them. We were handing them facts and telling them there was no reason to be afraid and they were screaming at us they were afraid and we simply were NOT listening.

I have learned that listening to the other side as they emote, without getting stuck on if they are right or wrong, is the only compassionate thing to do. I sat with people who were terrified that their children were going to have to witness body bags be taken out while their kids were getting on or off the school bus. This of course, wasnt rational thinking nor was it likely ever to happen...but...I sat with them and listened....

These were just caring parents who didnt want their children harmed or traumatized.

By the time the house was up and running I had some of the neighbors as volunteers...

sometimes being right isnt as effective as doing the right thing.

[Melissa]

Linus - I'm glad you posted this. Its always been my contention that presenting people with facts does no good because people believe what they believe based on other varied factors. I believe we have to teach people how to think, not what to think.

It is hard to budge an entrenched belief. Many people base their beliefs on tradition (what their family taught them), religion, perception, prejudices, biases, emotions, "stories" they heard, something a friend said and so on. Presenting a fact does little to budge the embedded belief or perception.

Calling someone ignorant due to their religious beliefs (because they believe in creationism over evolution, for instance) is not going to change anything or make people abandon their faith because someone is is pointing out scientific facts. I get annoyed with people who mock a person of faith because they assume this means ignorance of science or facts.

I believe change is rooted in teaching people how to assess, analyze and question received information. How to think independently and logically, how to know the difference between an opinion, a fact, and emotional manipulation.

I think it is important to teach people how to think, not what to think, and how to find credible information. If a person believes everyting they read online then it is not because they are ignorant or stupid it is because they have not been taught how to differentiate between a credible source and a non credible source; betweem a fact and an opinion. They don't know where to go to verify the information they are recieving. All of these skills are teachable and learnable.

Unfortunately, American schools tend to teach fact bites not critical thinking. We teach children what to think, not how to assess the myriads of information so that they can make a judgement on what is credible and what it not.

Melissa

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Gemme

People's opionions are a fragment of their self as they know it. The more you try to change their view, the more it feels as if someone is trying to change *them*.
This doesn't surprise me in the least.

Have to agree with you. So, seems we need to look at how we present facts. It all comes down to communication skills and regard for other's, I believe. Thinking about when people feel put down instead of informed with respect for who they are. Sometimes the messenger is the problem.

It doesn't feel so good to think that someone is cutting you, the person down, instead of misinformation you might be holding on to.

But, this article does bring much to light in the whole of it. Thanks, Linusfor posting this. Food for thought.

[Soft*Silver]

it was suppose to read, the first housing complex in our area...

Originally Posted by softness

I was part of the team that was establishing the first housing complex for people living with AIDS. We sent out fact sheets to the neighborhood and held press conferences and public meetings and had Drs and health commissioners present and yet, the more we gave them, the more hysterical their response became.

The problem was US, not them. We were handing them facts and telling them there was no reason to be afraid and they were screaming at us they were afraid and we simply were NOT listening.

I have learned that listening to the other side as they emote, without getting stuck on if they are right or wrong, is the only compassionate thing to do. I sat with people who were terrified that their children were going to have to witness body bags be taken out while their kids were getting on or off the school bus. This of course, wasnt rational thinking nor was it likely ever to happen...but...I sat with them and listened....

These were just caring parents who didnt want their children harmed or traumatized.

By the time the house was up and running I had some of the neighbors as volunteers...

sometimes being right isnt as effective as doing the right thing.

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by Linus

If that is true, how do we evolve beyond where we are? I used to play a game called Pyroto (it was the web version of the BBS game Pyroto Mountain). The game itself was a social experiment based on these facts and the hypothesis that people only change their opinion/view if something major happens.

Evolution takes time. A lot of it too.

The game/experiment you mention sounds right in accordance with what I know in my life experiences. A huge change or event happens, most often suddenly and unexpectedly, and a person's way of thinking can be completely turned around and tossed inside out. One's priorities shift...change position on the great internal list of important things...and one's pov widens (or narrows) accordingly.

Sometimes it's a case of changing the method of informing the people, as mentioned. Sometimes, Hell and Earth couldn't change that person's mind. Some people are black and white with hard edges and no blurring. Some are all kinds of gray with blurry images.

If the right person went to the right person and presented the right information the right way, I see change. I see personal growth and evolution and the beginning of the cure for cancer.

But....how often does that happen?

[JustBeingMe]

People not checking the facts is what gets them into trouble at times....ie Jim Jones followers, Hitler followers, and the list could go on and on. Education is a good thing, the more you know, the more informed you are, the less inclined you may become to being sucked into the BS and maybe, just maybe, the more inclined you are to do some research of your own.
I'm not saying this is the solution but it can be a beginning to one.
ETA: the old saying Ignorance is a bliss..........ISN"T.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by JustBeingMe

People not checking the facts is what gets them into trouble at times....ie Jim Jones followers, Hitler followers, and the list could go on and on. Education is a good thing, the more you know, the more informed you are, the less inclined you may become to being sucked into the BS and maybe, just maybe, the more inclined you are to do some research of your own.
I'm not saying this is the solution but it can be a beginning to one.
ETA: the old saying Ignorance is a bliss..........ISN"T.

Yup!

And ignorance gets us into such messes! Thinking about what you say about doing research. I know it can be hard when faced with contradictory views which seem to have good forethought and arguments. So, I try to get as much info as possible to compare.

I also know that information changes as more research gets done. Some theories are proven false as something is studied more. That can get confusing, but, it is that drive in finding out more that I often rely on. It means that those that are delving deeper want to get the best possible explanations and that feels noble to me. Makes me take more time in looking into things.

[Ursy]

Thanks for posting the article Linus. It rings true to me. I read it last night.
I just found it so depressing that I just didn't know what to say.

Then my daughter came home from my ex's place this afternoon, all emotional because her father's family were loudly saying things against us knowing she was within earshot (anti-trans*, anti-queer, etc) and I was reminded of this thread.

Originally Posted by Linus

So while I do agree that it's not surprising in many ways, knowing this info, how do we get those that refuse to see the facts (for whatever reason) to see them?

I guess the answer is - veeeerrrry slooooowly. Look at what we've achieved so far. Look at how attitudes to racism and women's rights in have changed just a few decades... I think it's something we just keep chipping away at, bit by bit.

Which does give me hope, you know? But right now I'm still pretty upset at my ex in-laws and their hateful ignorant behaviour (not my ex, his brother and sister in law).