Resistance to Position Change, Motivated Reasoning, and Polarization
Resistance to Position Change, Motivated Reasoning, and Polarization
复制标题
抵制立场改变、动机推理和两极分化
DOI：
10.1007/s11109-019-09526-z
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Felipe De Brigard
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Matthew L. Stanley;P. Henne;B. W. Yang;Felipe De Brigard
人们在社会和政治问题上的分歧似乎比以往任何时候都要大，他们固守现有的信仰，不愿改变这些信仰。经验研究的机制，推动这种阻力的信念改变集中在一组有限的众所周知的，收费，有争议的问题，并没有考虑到审议的原因和论点，在信念形成之前的实验会议。一个大的，异质性的样本（N = 3001），我们试图克服这些现有的问题，我们调查的原因和后果的阻力信仰改变五个不同的和争议较小的社会政治问题。在参与者最初选择支持或反对一个给定的社会政治立场后，他们被提供了支持他们选择的立场的理由（肯定理由），支持另一个立场的理由，未选择的立场（冲突理由），或两个立场的所有理由（双方的理由）。我们的研究结果表明，参与者更有可能坚持他们的最初决定，而不是改变他们，无论考虑的原因，这种阻力信念改变可能是由于动机，偏见的评价的原因，以支持他们的最初信念（先验信念偏见）。更具体地说，他们认为肯定的理由比冲突的理由更有利，即使在考虑了报告的有关问题的先验知识，提出的原因的新奇，以及报告的策略用于作出最初的决定。在许多情况下，没有改变立场的参与者在考虑了双方的许多原因后，往往对自己立场的优越性更加自信。
People seem more divided than ever before over social and political issues, entrenched in their existing beliefs and unwilling to change them. Empirical research on mechanisms driving this resistance to belief change has focused on a limited set of well-known, charged, contentious issues and has not accounted for deliberation over reasons and arguments in belief formation prior to experimental sessions. With a large, heterogeneous sample (N = 3001), we attempt to overcome these existing problems, and we investigate the causes and consequences of resistance to belief change for five diverse and less contentious socio-political issues. After participants chose initially to support or oppose a given socio-political position, they were provided with reasons favoring their chosen position (affirming reasons), reasons favoring the other, unchosen position (conflicting reasons), or all reasons for both positions (reasons for both sides). Our results indicate that participants are more likely to stick with their initial decisions than to change them no matter which reasons are considered, and that this resistance to belief change is likely due to a motivated, biased evaluation of the reasons to support their initial beliefs (prior-belief bias). More specifically, they rated affirming reasons more favorably than conflicting reasons—even after accounting for reported prior knowledge about the issue, the novelty of the reasons presented, and the reported strategy used to make the initial decision. In many cases, participants who did not change their positions tended to become more confident in the superiority of their positions after considering many reasons for both sides.
影响因子：
7.6
作者：
POMERANTZ, EM;CHAIKEN, S;TORDESILLAS, RS
通讯作者：
TORDESILLAS, RS
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Kruglanski, AW;Webster, DM
通讯作者：
Webster, DM