Study: Known lies still work.

[SirNitram]

Link

Have you seen the photo of Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin brandishing a rifle while wearing a U.S. flag bikini? Have you read the e-mail saying Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama was sworn into the U.S. Senate with his hand placed on the Koran? Both are fabricated -- and are among the hottest pieces of misinformation in circulation.

As the presidential campaign heats up, intense efforts are underway to debunk rumors and misinformation. Nearly all these efforts rest on the assumption that good information is the antidote to misinformation.

But a series of new experiments show that misinformation can exercise a ghostly influence on people's minds after it has been debunked -- even among people who recognize it as misinformation. In some cases, correcting misinformation serves to increase the power of bad information.

In experiments conducted by political scientist John Bullock at Yale University, volunteers were given various items of political misinformation from real life. One group of volunteers was shown a transcript of an ad created by NARAL Pro-Choice America that accused John G. Roberts Jr., President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court at the time, of "supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber."

A variety of psychological experiments have shown that political misinformation primarily works by feeding into people's preexisting views. People who did not like Roberts to begin with, then, ought to have been most receptive to the damaging allegation, 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 He also told the volunteers that the advocacy group had withdrawn the ad.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.

Republican disapproval of Roberts rose after hearing the misinformation but vanished upon hearing the correct information. The damaging charge, in other words, continued to have an effect even after it was debunked among precisely those people predisposed to buy the bad information in the first place.

Bullock found a similar effect when it came to misinformation about abuses at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Volunteers were shown a Newsweek report that suggested a Koran had been flushed down a toilet, followed by a retraction by the magazine. Where 56 percent of Democrats had disapproved of detainee treatment before they were misinformed about the Koran incident, 78 percent disapproved afterward. Upon hearing the refutation, Democratic disapproval dropped back only to 68 percent -- showing that misinformation continued to affect the attitudes of Democrats even after they knew the information was false.

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.

Bullock, Nyhan and Reifler are all Democrats.

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."

And now you know why McCain does it constantly.

[Surlethe]

I wonder if the Republican tendency to cling more strongly to beliefs when offered a refutation has anything to do with a conspiracist mindset. It's the sort of thing you see with the "liberal media" bullshit: dismiss the study because, since it disagrees with you, it must be biased and flawed.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

I wonder if the Republican tendency to cling more strongly to beliefs when offered a refutation has anything to do with a conspiracist mindset. It's the sort of thing you see with the "liberal media" bullshit: dismiss the study because, since it disagrees with you, it must be biased and flawed.

I don't think anything particularly complex or sinister needs to be ascribed to it. It's a simple matter of being in touch with reality; there's a whole atmosphere of Golden Mean bullshit in US politics wherein "liberal" and "conservative" are diametrically-opposed political views centered around a supposed "centrist" viewpoint.

This is of course a silly notion when you think about it. I do not consider myself a "liberal" (I only changed my party affiliation to Democrat so I could vote Obama in Colorado during the primary season), just a realist. Most Democrats, at least at this point in time, are mostly seeing the plain reality of the situation and are accordingly more likely to adjust their views to fit the truth. Diehard Republicans, conversely, are clinging to long-held views and trying to force the truth to fit them.

[Edi]

I wonder if the Republican tendency to cling more strongly to beliefs when offered a refutation has anything to do with a conspiracist mindset. It's the sort of thing you see with the "liberal media" bullshit: dismiss the study because, since it disagrees with you, it must be biased and flawed.

Probably. I've seen that behavior all too much lately. It hasn't helped that they have actively tried to court the moron vote for the past 15 to 20 years, that target audience doesn't have any capability to recognize when it's being manipulated.

[Mayabird]

Umm, this is just old basic psychology stuff repackaged for the election cycle. It's been known for years that people eventually turn the lies into truth in their heads if they hear it enough, and the "but it's not true" part gets lost somewhere along the way. It's the entire point behind advertising, for goodness sakes. Say "my brand is better" enough and people will believe it deep down, even if they don't remember seeing the ads.

[Glocksman]

Umm, this is just old basic psychology stuff repackaged for the election cycle. It's been known for years that people eventually turn the lies into truth in their heads if they hear it enough, and the "but it's not true" part gets lost somewhere along the way. It's the entire point behind advertising, for goodness sakes. Say "my brand is better" enough and people will believe it deep down, even if they don't remember seeing the ads.

True.
Enough advertising can even cause a brand name to supplant the generic name for a product in day to day use.

Two examples of this would be Coke and Kleenex.
How many people actually ask for a 'cola beverage' or 'facial tissue' even when they're ordering a Pepsi or just want to blow their noses?

[Edi]

True.
Enough advertising can even cause a brand name to supplant the generic name for a product in day to day use.

Two examples of this would be Coke and Kleenex.
How many people actually ask for a 'cola beverage' or 'facial tissue' even when they're ordering a Pepsi or just want to blow their noses?

Don't know about US people, but at least here we make the distinction. Sometimes Coke and Pepsi are used interchangeably with coke being more common (especially when fast food joints generally have one or the other). Kleenex is completely unknown here.

Interestingly enough, in Finland we have a brand of orange soda like Fanta that is called Jaffa (much better than Fanta actually, not quite as sweet) and that brand name is synonymous with orange soda here. So it's the same mechanism. It just usually has a culturally limited area of effect.

[Glocksman]

In my area, 'coke' is the generic word for any soda drink.
I first realized it wasn't a nationwide word for the same when I was in high school and a new classmate asked for a 'pop' when ordering a drink.

AFAIK, 'Kleenex' isn't regional within the USA.
But I could be wrong.

[The Yosemite Bear]

don't forget "Band-aid" from Johnson & Johnson vs. "Self Adhearing Bandage"

[Galvatron]

In my area, 'coke' is the generic word for any soda drink.

"What'll ya'll have to drink?"
"Coke."
"What kind?"
"Pepsi."

[Adrian Laguna]

Since I'm a pedantic bastard, I usually ask for "cola", which is the technically correct word when you want a cola flavoured soda.

[Glocksman]

Since I'm a pedantic bastard, I usually ask for "cola", which is the technically correct word when you want a cola flavoured soda.

But you're a Venezuelan in Illinois, so I'm not surprised.

Seriously though, until Edi mentioned it I wouldn't have guessed that if I was visting Finland and was about to sneeze, an english speaking Finn would wonder what I was asking for when I requested a Kleenex.

Live and learn.

[Edi]

I've mashed a couple of your posts into the same quotes just to save effort, but here goes:

In my area, 'coke' is the generic word for any soda drink.
I first realized it wasn't a nationwide word for the same when I was in high school and a new classmate asked for a 'pop' when ordering a drink.

Seriously though, until Edi mentioned it I wouldn't have guessed that if I was visting Finland and was about to sneeze, an english speaking Finn would wonder what I was asking for when I requested a Kleenex.

Asking for coke here will get you precisely that or the nearest equivalent cola. More specifics are needed, such as asking for pop and then specifying kind.

The Kleenex thing might be known to English speakers here, but it's not something you can bet on. We have our own brands of tissue paper, though I think I saw Kleenex at some store. The domestic brands don't enjoy the status of being household words as such, because the same brands also have toilet paper and other stuff.

[Joe Momma]

I wonder if the Republican tendency to cling more strongly to beliefs when offered a refutation has anything to do with a conspiracist mindset. It's the sort of thing you see with the "liberal media" bullshit: dismiss the study because, since it disagrees with you, it must be biased and flawed.

As Mayabird said about the brand name recognition, this is basic psychology -- when confronted with evidence contradictory to one's beliefs, many people will cling to said belief more strongly as a defensive mechanism.

[Stargate Nerd]

Seriously though, until Edi mentioned it I wouldn't have guessed that if I was visting Finland and was about to sneeze, an english speaking Finn would wonder what I was asking for when I requested a Kleenex.

Live and learn.

You'd be asking for a "Tempo" in Germany or a "Selpak" in Turkey when in need of a tissue. Both brand names.

[Durandal]

Here's the McCain campaign's explanation for why they lie so often.

“We recognize it’s not going to be 2000 again,” McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said, alluding to the media’s swooning coverage of McCain’s ill-fated crusade against then-Gov. George W. Bush and the GOP establishment. “But he lost then. We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it.”

[Brain_Caster]

A series of ads — including accusations that Barack Obama backed teaching sex education to Illinois kindergartners and charges that Obama called Sarah Palin a lipstick-wearing pig —

Maybe I'm being naive, but could these "Obama did this and that bad thing" ads actually be an opportunity for the Obama campaign? They could run counter-ads in which they refer to the McCain ads, then openly call him a liar and give proof for that.

Ideally, of course, would be a court decision that forces the McCain people to air corrections of their ads at their own expense. Are there any anti-slander laws in the US that would make this possible?

[RedImperator]

A series of ads — including accusations that Barack Obama backed teaching sex education to Illinois kindergartners and charges that Obama called Sarah Palin a lipstick-wearing pig —

Maybe I'm being naive, but could these "Obama did this and that bad thing" ads actually be an opportunity for the Obama campaign? They could run counter-ads in which they refer to the McCain ads, then openly call him a liar and give proof for that.

The Obama people are making lemons out of lemonade and basically repeating "McCain is a liar" over and over again. Repeat a McCain claim, state the rebuttal, finish with "JOHN MCCAIN: LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!" Both Obama and Biden's are hammering this in their stump speeches, and the media seems to be picking up on this. Branding works both ways: if McCain can get people to believe Obama is going to raise their taxes just by saying it over and over, Obama can get people to believe McCain is a stinking liar by saying it over and over. It's actually a Rove tactic: strike at your opponent's strength, with the advantage that this time, it's true.

Ideally, of course, would be a court decision that forces the McCain people to air corrections of their ads at their own expense. Are there any anti-slander laws in the US that would make this possible?

I think they're over in Fairyland. Just ride a unicorn to the end of the rainbow, hang a left at the gingerbread castle, and then follow Gumdrop Lane until you get to Xanadu, which is about a mile and a half past Leprachaun Town (if you pass the Bigfoot Rodeo, you've gone too far). You'll find them in the factory where they make perpetual motion machines. If you get lost, ask Glinda the Good Witch of the North for directions.