Resistance to Position Change, Motivated Reasoning, and Polarization

Research Overview

• Title: Resistance to Position Change, Motivated Reasoning, and Polarization

• Authors: Matthew L. Stanley, Paul Henne, Brenda W. Yang, Felipe De Brigard

• Published in: Political Behavior (2019)

• Objective: Investigate resistance to belief change in socio-political issues.

  • Examine underlying mechanisms, specifically prior-belief bias, in a diverse sample (N = 3001).

Abstract Summary

• Current Climate: People are increasingly divided over social/political issues, resistant to change.

• Study Goals: Identify causes (e.g., prior-belief bias) and consequences (e.g., polarization) of belief resistance.

• Approach: Participants evaluated affirming, conflicting, or balanced reasons after taking a position.

• Findings: Most participants remained committed to initial beliefs, often increasing confidence in their stances after deliberation.

Introduction

• Historical Context: Philosophers and psychologists advocate for fair deliberation (Dewey, Mill).

• Problem: Strong resistance to changing beliefs, even with compelling arguments.

• Previous Research Limitations: Focused on contentious issues without accounting for prior reasoning, leading to incomplete understanding.

• Key Concept: Prior-belief bias – individuals evaluate reasons congruent with their beliefs more favorably.

Motivational Goals in Reasoning

• Accuracy Goals: Encourage balanced evaluation of evidence for correct conclusions.

• Directional Goals: Aim to support existing beliefs; often lead individuals to dismiss incongruent information.

• Examples: Partisan reasoning; individuals favor information supporting their political identification.

Experiment Methodology

• Participants: 3001 sourced from Amazon Mechanical Turk, with varied socio-political backgrounds.

• Issues Examined: Domestic fracking, animal testing, drone strikes, the gold standard, standardized testing.

• Procedure:

  • Participants read background info and rated prior knowledge.

  • Made initial position choice, then evaluated various sets of reasons.

  • Indicated confidence in their selected position both before and after evaluation.

Findings and Results

• Position Change:

  • Participants who evaluated conflicting reasons were more likely to change their positions compared to those given affirming reasons.

  • Evaluating reasons for both sides also resulted in some changes, but less frequently than conflicting reasons.

• Confidence After Reasoning:

  • Those who did not change positions often reported increased confidence in their prior beliefs post-evaluation.

Discussion

• Prior-Belief Bias:

  • Explained that individuals tend to overvalue affirming reasons, reinforcing existing beliefs despite balanced exposure.

• Polarization Effects:

  • Previous studies indicated polarization mainly for contentious issues; the current study explores its existence with diverse topics.

Conclusion

• Findings suggest resistance to belief change is a pervasive issue across socio-political contexts, influenced strongly by prior-belief bias despite exposure to contrasting information.

• Future research should aim to extend these findings to other political issues and diverse populations.