Ingrained prior convicts interfere with human ability to process new information. Persuasive Litigator nominates 4 big issues to consider:
1. The Continued Influence Effect
Even after erroneous information is retracted, studies show that the incorrect information will have a persistent influence as people continue to rely on it. Even in the face of expert medical testimony that an individual lacked intention, for example, individuals will continue to treat the individual as a moral agent. The solution, according to the researchers, is to provide an alternate account that is as simple as the misinformation. That is, instead of just providing refutation ("That isn't true"), fill in the gap ("Here is what is true"). In the case of brain injury and moral responsibility, that can be a challenge because nothing is simpler than the idea that we are all responsible for our actions no matter what. The alternate account in this case needs to be an argument with comparable simplicity....
2. The Familiarity Backfire Effect
When a myth is repeatedly rebutted, even the rebuttal can end up reinforcing the familiarity of the myth and making it more likely to be remembered and repeated. Advocates might think they're pounding the false belief down and making it unsustainable, but they're actually just raising its profile....
3. The Overkill Backfire Effect
Another way attempts to correct misinformation can backfire is through overkill. If refutations are more elaborate or more complicated than the myth itself, then the myth is the more attractive belief...
4. Worldview Backfire Effect
The final explanation the researchers offer for the persistence of false beliefs lies in the critical area of worldview. We want to believe in a just world, a moral universe where bad things don't simply happen, but are instead the result of poor choices...
Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm citing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U., Seifert, C., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13 (3), 106-131 DOI: 10.1177/1529100612451018 http://psi.sagepub.com/content/13/3/106
@ Persuasive Litigator: Cut Through the "Stickiness" of Prior Beliefs: "Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: "
No comments:
Post a Comment