Duke and Yale studies: Truthful information only makes conservatives and Republicans dumber

[HamdenRice]

Yale and Duke University political scientists recently released the results of several fascinating studies that show that reality-based, truthful information only makes conservative republicans cling to misinformation more ferociously -- in effect, information only makes conservatives dumber.

The political scientists were even able to quantify this result, finding that providing solid information to a conservative republican doubles the probability that the conservative republican will cling to wrong, dumb information; in other words, solid information has the effect of doubling the number of conservative republicans who are stupid.

The political scientists even have a name for this phenomenon -- the "refutation effect."

This is something I've noticed in arguments with conservatives on line and in real life -- the more facts and reason you provide them, the more vociferously they cling to lies, distortions and disinformation.

More ominously, the studies' conclusions suggest that as gas prices destroy family budgets, as foreclosures ravage family housing, as the endless, useless war drags on bankrupting the treasury and needlessly killing Iraqis and Americans alike, conservative Republicans are likely to confirm that these events represent economic good times and military victory.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091402375_pf.html

Bullock and others have also shown that some refutations can strengthen misinformation, especially among conservatives.

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.

In a paper approaching publication, Nyhan, a PhD student at Duke University, and Reifler, at Georgia State University, suggest that Republicans might be especially prone to the backfire effect because conservatives may have more rigid views than liberals: Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation. Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same "backfire effect" when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration's stance on stem cell research.





Thanks to Jingofever at RigorousIntuition board for the heads up.

[orwell]

1. This makes a lot of sense... n/t

[UnrepentantUnitarian]

2. Seen this in religion too.

Conservatives of the fundamentalist mode will cling to their beliefs all the more when the light of demonstrable truth is shown upon them. Ultimately, honesty--both in terms of what we "really know" and humble acknowledgement of what we "don't and can't know"--undermines literalistic, absolutistic faith and since these folks build their entire lives upon those foundations they will fight all the harder to defend them. That "circling of the wagons" mentality is common to both authoritarian religion and authoritarian politics.

[mwb970]

83. It's like those "the world will end on October 1" cults.

When October 1 comes and goes and the world remains intact, they say that this outcome "proves that they were right"! This happens every single time. It make no sense whatsoever, but then, neither do conservatives.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

3. This is just flat scary - and a powerful argument for strong education teaching critical thinking.

Kids need to be taught how to think critically before they are ruined by their stupid, conservative parents.

[old mark]

8. This is why thr right, especially the "religious" right really hate

real education and intelligent people. They are really threatened by it, and can not tolerate it.

They need and love ignorance and flat out denial of reality.

Just who we need running the country for another 8 years.

mark

[nichomachus]

10. I used to teach critical thinking

Many of my students accused me of trying to turn them into liberals.

Once we were having a discussion in the class on drug use. To aid in the discussion, I wrote some statistics -- from CDC -- on the board.

One student just waved her hand and said "Those look like liberal numbers to me."

[LonelyLRLiberal]

11. We are screwed!! Need to get started in kindergarten, I guess. nt

[tbyg52]

36. Yes. Or sooner.

Not to turn them into liberals, necessarily, just reasoning beings who obtain facts before applying reason.

My dad tried very hard to raise me to be a racist. He didn't succeed because he himself bought me a Highlights subscription and all the Scholastic books I could read.

Get 'em reading early, get 'em the facts, get 'em literature that encourages empathy.

[tom_paine]

78. I've seen it happen before. Because some of the Loyal Bushie Base

really are nice people on a personal level, with old fashioned American Values that they still apply in their personal lives. People who if you met them in better times, when their ugliness towards the world and lack of conscience wasn't activated by Bushiganda or Nazi Propaganda or KKK Propaganda or whatever, we would find perfectly nice and good company.

I don't know if your dad met that criteria exactly...how could I? But my own experience with a "Nice Nazi" who ALSO was inadvertantly teaching his child to one day disbelieve everything the father believes because he provided that child (out of an honest desire to do right in the raising of the child, and do his duty as a father by giving that child the best leg up in life as possible, mentally) the tools of critical thinking which he himself lacks.

Crazy, eh? But it's a crazy world and it sounds to me like your situation and your father are not all that different from my acquaintance (who could be friends with a Nazi/Bushie, however nice personally?).

[tbyg52]

79. My dad wasn't a complete Nazi

Didn't believe in lynchings and stuff, just that we shouldn't associate with people of other races any more than necessary, and that they were in fact inferior. He was polite to everybody and seldom used the "N" word even in private - he had to be *really* mad about something.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong about that - for example, I somehow acquired the impression at home that Medgar Evers was a bad person, before I found out the facts for myself.

I argued with him about it kinda recreationally - funny, he never asked where I got my ideas, just argued back.

It's interesting to hear of another parent unwittingly undermining their own case!

[Ferretherder]

61. That's 'SCREWN'. dude!

...courtesy of - 'The 2008 Compleet and Unadulterous Freepshonary and Thesaurupus'.

[Patiod]

12. "Liberal numbers"

That's really scary

[jmondine]

55. Stephen Colbert said that "reality has a liberal bias"

[barbtries]

4. so, i was right

a bunch of idiots. heaven forbid there's at least two in my own family ...

[grasswire]

5. I think I know why this is so.

I've observed this very phenomenon when monitoring freerepublic every day for six years.

I think I know why it happens.

The people on the right are continually lied to by their own leadership and "opinion leaders" and the people KNOW they are being lied to. They suspend disbelief in order to be part of the latest spin.

Therefore, they believe that other people lie with as much regularity and impunity.

So when someone is telling them the truth, they easily believe it is a lie. But they only push back against things that don't fit their narrative.

[philly_bob]

16. Wow! You monitored FreeRepublic every day for 6 years? You're a hero.

Is there any reliable source so I can read a daily summary of what's going on over there -- without actually going there?

I encourage you to write up news from the FreeRepublic here on DU...

[OnyxCollie]

17. You monitored freerepublic every day for six years?!?!?

Why not take up self-flagellation instead?

You are a strong person to handle that much stupidity.

[tbyg52]

37. You are a true hero!

I'm adding you to my buddy list so I can monitor what you dig out of the muck.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

63. Wouldn't that add up to heavy duty codependency (cultist-like)?

I mean, when being a member of a clique requires denial of seriously destructive relationships and behaviors associated with those relationships, isn't that akin to cultism (an extreme form of codependency)?

I still think some form(s) of deep-seated fear(s) explain the compulsion to be in absolute denial no matter what the circumstance. That degree of irrational fear nearly always produces human evil/behavior, unfortunately.

[SpiralHawk]

6. Free clue for Republicon Homelanders:

The truth will make you free.

[HamdenRice]

9. That's a really lovely picture in your sig line! nt

[mwb970]

84. Lovely, but rather bleak. /nt

[leveymg]

7. This is why one must be cautious arguing facts with GOP Nutters when canvassing

I've knocked on a lot of doors these past couple weeks, and intend to keep it up through 11/04. Have found that the most effective means of persuasion with die-hard McCain people isn't to argue with them, but to ask them how they came to their views.

Many people are surprisingly willing to tell you their political histories, if they perceive that you're genuinely interested. Once they identify that point in their life where their right-wing world view became a fixed idea -- for a lot of people, it was loss of job or status during the Carter or Clinton years -- one can start to discuss how that mindset does not match today's reality.

One can never force conversion, but a gentle push can be constructive. A firm handshake and a smile at the end of the conversation always helps.

[nichomachus]

19. Be careful of the "screen stories"

People, when asked questions such as you asked them, will often invent a story that sounds acceptable and will justify their beliefs. They usually believe this story, but it's not the real reason they hold the belief.

For example, very few people are going to say they started voting Republican because they were scared of black people and the Republicans played the race card very well. That's why they did, but they will invent a story about being dissed by some Democrat, or losing their job under Carter, or some other nonsense. This is called a "screen story." There are a hundred variations on it.

[leveymg]

21. The purpose is to reach them on a human level, and get them to talk about why they believe the

things they do.

At my work, I've interviewed hundreds of people who have a claim to political asylum after having been persecuted. Have developed an "ear" for falsification, exaggeration and omission.

Masking of shameful truths is a fact in many cases. But, I'm not so much trying to dig out embarrassing personal facts on the doorstep as to try to persuade voters to reconsider their political beliefs. Empathy, compassion and an ability to suspend judgment is necessary to both types of interview.

I'll agree that people often deceive themselves -- and others, such as pollsters -- about their own prejudices. In Virginia, it's called the "Wilder Effect", where Doug Wilder (VA's first Black Governor) polled 18% higher than his actual vote tally.

The standard, "I haven't decided" response is BS in 65% of the time. Some people just don't want to be confrontational.

[nichomachus]

33. And then you have those -- like me

who just like to play with pollsters' heads. I used to live in NH -- and you had to do something to amuse yourself during those long, cold winter nights when you were flooded with calls from pollsters wanting to know what you were thinking - or trying to make you believe something false.

I actually became quite good at it.

[Solly Mack]

13. Well, yeah...the more you attack someone's comfort blanket the more they need it

the more they cling to it...the longer they refuse to let go

You can't attack - and yes, some people do view facts as an attack - a persons well nurtured belief structure and not meet resistance.

If you base your life and who you are on certain things (regardless of how far from reality), then it's not just what you believe that is under attack but your very person is under attack as well. Your whole "way of life", so to speak. So then facts become the enemy and the people who give you the facts become the enemy. Well, an enemy lies..an enemy brings harms...An enemy wants to destroy you.

Change then becomes the enemy...because facts and truths challenge what we believe and demand we change. Well, if your entire life is rooted in believing certain things then change will destroy your life.

[jfkraus]

14. Rovian Tactics embrace this

Rove instinctively understands this phenomenon as it applies to his "base". If you're going to lie, lie big and keep lying. The refutation of the lie then makes it even more true. It's the basis of his entire strategy.

[izquierdista]

15. Saving face

Perhaps the solution lies in something that has little importance in the U.S., but is very important in East Asian cultures -- saving face. If you have staked out a jackass position based on dogma and distortions (like most conservatives), and new information rubs your face in the error of your ways, of course your can't just flip-flop, you have to dig in your heels and believe harder in the party line!

To change people from conservative to liberal doesn't require more facts in the face, it requires a way to SAVE face. The most probing question that can be asked is the Dr. Phil "how's that working out for ya?" question. If you can get a "not too well, that $4 gas is not working out too well for me" answer, then you have given the person a way out of their dogma. They aren't challenged on the facts they believe, but the result they experience. They can rely on their experience to say "yes, we need change, change I can believe in".

That is why it is important for Obama to point out that McCain's change is Johnny-come-lately half-hearted excuse for change, and to keep pushing the real change line. As long as he can keep the "change" message as his own, it will be up to individuals to save face by saying "this is not working out too well, no matter what the facts are, I think a change is in order".

[mcg]

38. It can be hard to admit a mistake, to admit being duped,

to admit to being gullible, to admit to being trusting. Maybe one way to help a person save face is to point out that it is mainly the fault of the person who is lying. Instead of saying "You were stupid to believe ..." say "They betrayed your trust.".

This reminds me of cult dynamics, how hard it is to leave a cult, even after the leader is clearly discredited. To face that for years I've been walking down the wrong road, that is tough. Many people have a tendency to avoid the ensuing pain that comes during the transitional period.

It's kind of like kicking an addiction. At first you go through pain.

[Wilber_Stool]

18. Here's another

opportunity to push my favorite on-line book:

The Authoritarians.


We meet again. If you are keeping track of my promises, as we roll along
together on the internet, I said in the Introduction that we would figure out why
authoritarian followers think in the bizarre and perplexing way they so often do. The
key to the puzzle springs from Chapter 2's observation that, first and foremost,
followers have mainly copied the beliefs of the authorities in their lives. They have
not developed and thought through their ideas as much as most people have. Thus
almost anything can be found in their heads if their authorities put it there, even stuff
that contradicts other stuff. A filing cabinet or a computer can store quite inconsistent
notions and never lose a minute of sleep over their contradiction. Similarly a high
RWA can have all sorts of illogical, self-contradictory, and widely refuted ideas
rattling around in various boxes in his brain, and never notice it.
So can everybody, of course, and my wife loves to catch inconsistencies in my
reasoning when we’re having a friendly discussion about one of my personal failures.
But research reveals that authoritarian followers drive through life under the influence
of impaired thinking a lot more than most people do, exhibiting sloppy reasoning,
highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, a
profound ethnocentrism, and--to top it all off--a ferocious dogmatism that makes it
unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic. These seven
deadly shortfalls of authoritarian thinking eminently qualify them to follow a wouldbe
dictator. As Hitler is reported to have said,“What good fortune for those in power
that people do not think.”

This should be required reading for everyone on this board. A fast and entertaining read, it explains why you can't tell a right winger anything.

[Tansy_Gold]

23. You beat me to it!

There are other works, too, but Altemyer's is excellent AND FREE.


:hi:


Tansy Gold

[0rganism]

72. yay! two thumbs up for Altemeyer!

I went through that in a moment of desperation and fatigue, a couple years back -- it explains so much, so well.

everyone, READ THIS FREE BOOK -> http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ <-

[progressoid]

20. Bah - more liberal, elitist, claptrap from latte sipping tree-huggers.

[bbgrunt]

22. the percentage of the population that "thinks" this way is truly amazing.

[Lorien]

24. The authoritarian mindset

once they make up their minds about something, it's impossible to change them. There was another study done a couple of years ago that found that liberals could digest new information and alter their viewpoints if their beliefs were proven incorrect, while repugs were simply incapable of digesting new information, period. It has to do with brain function and chemistry. Something about neural pathways that somehow shut down...I wish I could find that article! Maybe someone else remembers it and has it bookmarked.

[meow2u3]

62. Damn straight!

The authoritarian mindset summed up in one sentence: My mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts.

[intheflow]

25. Makes me want to send this to every conservative idjit in my family.

But of course this would only confirm (in their minds) that it's a lie. What a Catch-22! K&R

[codjh9]

44. Amen to that. But they won't LISTEN! It's incredible. Anyone IN THERE?

[pnwmom]

26. This doesn't surprise me at all. You rarely change someone's mind

directly trying to refute something that person is saying. It often just makes them dig their heels in.

A better way is to find some point of agreement, and then slowly lead the person, step by step, to understand your point of view. Then there is a CHANCE that they might actually begin to consider it.

[foxfeet]

27. It's not about critical thinking

It's about feeling. For all that they decry "touchy-feely, bleeding-heart" Democrats, those stuck in the Republican/conservative mindset are astonishingly unable to recognize how their own feelings govern their thought processes and political positions(not to mention the religious positions.) It all happens at a deep, visceral, reptilian-brain level, hence the logically unsupportable conclusions they draw. Those conclusions are put forth to explain their own emotional state of affairs and fear is a primary motivator.

[tom_paine]

28. Not "The Refutation Effect". "The Nazi Effect"

Loyal Bushie followers have been programmed much in the same way cult members, Commies, Nazis, and any other victims of authoritarian propaganda are.

Except the limitless funds the Bushies have, the level of media saturation that permeates this society, literally allowing a tighter, more seamless False Reality Bubble than either the Nazis on the Right or the Soviets on the Left had to offer their subject populaces.

But the American Subject Populace is subject to the same thing the Nazis and Soviets have done, but with so much more progress in the sciences of statistical mob manipulation, it is deft and "light as a feather", so light most people haven't noticed they can't form original thoughts anymore, so long have they been relying on punditocracy and "going with the flow" in an ever narrowing and more insane, tightening range of permissible thought they do not even realize they are constrained into.

Add in a cowed, parasitized and neutralized media and it's a wonder the cattlecars haven't started carting us away to the Texas and Alaska Halliburton Homeland Security Camps (which are REAL - Google it).

But the person writing this WP article knew that to even get close to such blashphemy, which is to say that Bushie followers are mentally similar to Nazi followers, hardcore Soviets, KKK types, etc. and this is a common feature of all such groups, and that the great mass of Americans, while not evil Bushies, are no longer able to critically think sufficiently to recgnize very very bad people (to say the least) behaving badly quite openly.

Not allowed to say that though. Not allowed to even hint at it. Not if you want to keep your job and your health care, not to mention feeding your family.

Thus, we get weak-tea bullshit like this, bending and twisting to state what is obvious in a "Bushie Politically Correct Fashion"...otherwise have the cannons of the Bushie Might Wurlitzer aim it's trumpet-blast and risk your job.

It's funny, in an Anne Frank hiding in the attic sort of a way.

And WE don't have to hide in attics...for the time being at least. So we've got THAT going for us...

:puke:

[Jankyn]

29. So did anyone else notice...

...that the "misinformation effect" was in place for liberal-leaning (identified as Democratic Party members) voters as well?

The only difference here seems to be in the magnitude of the effect, and that says a great deal about the emotional power of misinformation, particularly if it confirms preconceived beliefs or emotional reactions.

Okay, so there's a reasonable indication that conservative-leaners are more likely to cling to misinformation. No big surprise there. But I'm just as concerned about the misinformation floating around on the left side of the spectrum, which confirms for the uninformed the caricature of "crazy lefties."

And I wish to heartily second the suggestion above that media outlets be held accountable for the truth in political advertisements they broadcast/print. Hell, the media should be held accountable for the truthfulness of everything they broadcast/print, even commercial advertising! What a different--and more reasonable--world that might be.

[tanyev]

30. That reminded me of something else I read--I think it was in John Dean's book,

Conservatives Without Conscience. He had a lot of information from an in-depth psychological study of the conservative mindset. One of the conclusions was that even when society becomes more liberal, it's not because the hard-core conservatives are changing their minds. It's because they are dying off.

[Tansy_Gold]

42. Most of Dean's information came from Bob Altemeyer's research

which is available FREE ONLINE

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

[targetpractice]

54. Birth order contributes to this (i.e., laterborns are more liberal)...

Frank Sulloway has done some mind-blowing research about how birth order affects conservative vs. radical worldviews.

Check out this paper.

[Naturyl]

31. Fascinating.

I have a independent philosopher friend who is working on the idea that when you tell truthful information to irrational people, they perfectly reverse that information into a mirror-image false reality. This seems to be a similar phenomena.

[supernova]

57. So, we should

tell them to vote dem in a perversly negative way? As in:

"Don't you dare vote for Obama!!"

"Don't you dare vote Dem"

[Naturyl]

59. Doubt it would work

It sounds like a logical conclusion, but I suspect if they thought we were insincere, it wouldn't work.

[Vanje]

32. We're SCREWN nt

[prayin4rain]

35. screwn.... haha n/t

[nichomachus]

34. Mark Twain said it best

"You can't reason someone out of something that they weren't reasoned into in the first place."

Most of these people do not hold their beliefs for any rational reason. Their opinions have no foundation in fact. Therefore, trying to use fact or reason to "reach" them is a futile task.

I've pretty much given up.

[Javaman]

39. so if repukes read this study suddenly vanish in a puff of smoke? one can only hope.

:rofl:

[NashVegas]

40. Thus Proving the Corollary: You Kill More Flies With Honey Than You Do Vinegar

EQ is just as important as IQ, yet many refuse to believe that, too.

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

41. Statistical proof that this society is irretrievably doomed

Darwin will not tolerate this kind of deevolution and allow the survival of the species. That is all.

[HamdenRice]

46. Idiocracy.

'Nuff said.

[codjh9]

43. I've seen it in relatives and co-workers, but this is the first scientific study I've

ever seen or heard of. Un-f-ing-believable. And yes, they DO cling to more rigid views. If a Republican suddenly came out for everything I believed, I'd vote for 'em, but the Repubs NEVER (well, most of 'em anyway) change their views & voting patterns, not matter what changes, what new evidence comes out, etc.

[riverdeep]

45. It may not be time to pat ourselves on the back just yet.

A variety of psychological experiments have shown that political misinformation primarily works by feeding into people's preexisting views. People who did not like (John) Roberts to begin with, then, ought to have been most receptive to the damaging allegation (that he was an abortion clinic bomber), 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.

This is a HUMAN condition, cons may be more prone to it, but it really affects everyone. We examine and try to knock down information that doesn't support our conclusions while being much less investigative about information that conforms to it. That's why science has been as successful as it has, it recognizes this tendency and tries to compensate for it with the scientific method.

[HamdenRice]

47. "This is a HUMAN condition" -- actually it isn't, at least not equally equally

Note that the effect of refutation on Democrats was that the number of people believing the false information declined, although not by as much as one would hope.

When confronted with similar refutations, however, the number of conservatives who cling to disinformation increases -- indeed, doubles.

The results are very, very different, and liberals and conservatives process information very differently.

Liberals rely on reason; conservatives on their "gut" and authoritarian "our team" loyalties," and the studies show that good information actually makes conservatives cling to bad ideas more, while good information fails to change liberals to the degree that rationalism might predict.

That's a big difference.

[codjh9]

66. I agree. Just had a conversation w/a fellow liberal this afternoon about this post,

and we both agreed that we were more open to change of our attitudes, voting habits, etc. when new evidence/platforms/positions/whatever present themselves.

[BREMPRO]

48. I've witnessed this effect first hand...

I methodically refuted a RW blogger recently with the bridge to nowhere story and noticed that in response their TYPE WENT mostly CAPS with lots of !!!!'s because is some way they knew it was true, but tried to misdirect my factual presentation with a rabid hit at obama's earmark record. If you compare their records, Palin out earmarked him per capita by 10 to 1. that fact didn't matter to them. It was very telling. You can't argue with people who believe the dinosaurs walked with man 4000 year ago. I believe that cracking the facade of the myths and lies that prop up their politicians, is just like attacking their faith, goes to the core of their beliefs and they will fight to the death to defend their faith, in the same way they defend their politicians.

[Scout]

49. reminds me of the incompetence study....

some people are so incompetent they really don't know how incompetent they are. And they don't learn from the mistakes of others, or from their own!

[silverweb]

50. That explains a LOT!

Otherwise intelligent and decent people I know (and some I'm related to) become absolutely closed when presented with factual information.

I've just never understood it. Now I can quit blaming myself for not presenting convincingly enough.

[orleans]

71. also in the article (something we might want to keep in mind)

"Reifler questioned attempts to debunk rumors and misinformation on the campaign trail, especially among conservatives: "Sarah Palin says she was against the Bridge to Nowhere," he said, referring to the pork-barrel project Palin once supported before she reversed herself. "Sending those corrections to committed Republicans is not going to be effective, and they in fact may come to believe even more strongly that she was always against the Bridge to Nowhere."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091402375_pf.html

[depakid]

75. Exactly why its SO important to run negative ads and define Republican candidates first

before they have a chance to.

Had the Obama campaign done that all summer- using McCain's % Co.'s gaffes and stupid, sometimes appalling statements against them- making McCain look confused and foolish- we be in a close election at this ppoint.

[silverweb]

80. Paradoxical, isn't it?

Conscious rejection of factual information.

I used to go all out debunking those reTHUG disinformation emails and smears, but gave up quite some time ago. The people who choose lies over factual information are also, I've noticed, completely incapable of sticking to a subject, actually responding to factual information, or refraining from personal attacks.

Quite a paradox... and I don't know any way around it.

[katty]

51. ain't that the truth!!

[Luminous Animal]

52. Why do you focus on consertives only?

The study also proved that Democrats are vulnerable to refutation effect, as well.

[Lex]

53. Probably due to this language from the article:

Republicans might be especially prone to the backfire effect because conservatives may have more rigid views than liberals: Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation. Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same "backfire effect" when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration's stance on stem cell research.

[Luminous Animal]

58. Yes, I saw that...

but the rest of the article did not support the conclusion of the OP. There were examples of Democrats doing the same thing.

I won't argue that Republicans and conservatives are more rigid in their views but I will argue that there is plenty of evidence that liberals are prone to the "backfire effect", as well (maybe to a lesser extent, but more study would help clarify). Witness the recent Clinton / Obama wars. Both sides spent a significant amount of time refuting misinformation that wouldn't die.

[eridani]

77. It's a different effect

Refutation makes conservatives cling harder to misinformation. Liberals back off of the misinformation, but don't drop back to the same level of disapproval as before they heard it.

[skypilot]

56. kick

*

[Karenina]

60. Thanks for this, HR!

:loveya:

[HughMoran]

64. Even knowing this was true (didn't need a study to tell me this), I still feel sick in my gut now

This is why Obama's calm and reasoned approach doesn't work with conservatives.

[blogslut]

65. I wonder if this might have to do with the mishandling of fantasies in childhood

I understand the importance of imagination when it comes to kids but how many parents neglect to sit their children down (at a proper age) and explain that Sponge Bob is nothing but pixels and light? That the Power Rangers are actors in costumes and their powers are the result of special effects and stunt work? That the Tooth Fairy is Mom or Dad? How many parents teach their children to question everything, even their folks? Perhaps there are too many moms and dads that are more content with obedient, naive children than they are with inquisitive, skeptical ones?

[Tansy_Gold]

69. Given the high percentage of people in this country who

self-identify as Capital-C Christians and attend church regularly, there are a lot of PARENTS who still believe in imaginary beings. There are, I imagine (sic) far more conservative christians than there are conservative atheists.

An individual whose Weltanschauung is founded on a non-scientific, non-empirical "belief" is already mishandling the fantasies.



Tansy Gold

[magellan]

76. Some people are just naturally inquisitive, too

I've been a rebel since childhood. Sent my parents, teachers, bosses and the US military round the twist by refusing to conform without question and being too curious. I have a healthy respect for authority and won't argue just for argument's sake, but I like to understand things inside and out and if I feel I'm not being told the truth I will make waves.

[D23MIURG23]

67. kick

[FlyingSquirrel]

68. "You cannot win an argument with a fool... because a fool KNOWS he is right."

[Karenina]

86. "You can't REASON people out of positions

they didn't REASON themselves into in the first place."

[orleans]

70. this is HYSTERICAL! and it explains SO much!

omg--what a great study. whoever thought this one up should win a prize.

[ThoughtCriminal]

73. I've seen this in action

I can recall one on-line "debate" over the Plame Affair in particular. This particular right-winger was convinced that Richard Armitage was a Democrat (he has in fact, been a carreer Republican), insisted it was true and could provide no sources. After pointing out Armitages's biography at the State Department website, he made no reply changed the subject. A few weeks later he was posting the same non-sense.

By this point, all I could wonder what this guy's major malfunction was.

[cui bono]

74. Wow. I wonder when they'll isolate the gene for that.

Because I can't wait until they find a cure!

[Karenina]

81. bttt!

:kick:

[deutsey]

82. I've encountered this with conservatives I know

I try to just stay away from them now. It's just too frustrating.

[mainegreen]

85. So it's been scientifically proven modern Republicans are insane morons?

:rofl:

Not surprised.