More on motivated reasoning

Building somewhat on yesterday’s post, last night I was involved in a discussion of cell phones. But we were not debating the likelihood of cell phones causing cancer, nor the problems of texting. Instead, I was watching two friends try to convince each other that their respective cell phone choices – an Android vs. an iPhone 4 – was the better phone.

After a relatively long debate, I stepped in to point out that each were unlikely to change each others’ mind – and in fact that research, such as that I pointed to in yesterday’s post about the ability of corrections to backfire, would lead us to suspect that they would ultimately polarize and each become more firmly convinced of the rightness of their own choice. One of the debaters, however, countered this point, suggesting that the discussion could only expose them to new ideas and to develop their own understanding of the benefits and drawbacks of each.

This is a good point. Deliberation theorists would like us to believe that exposure to others’ views can be a very good thing, letting us come to know our own arguments better while also exposing us to knowledge of others’ views. But in what circumstances is this reasonable exchange more likely? And how can we reconcile this with the inevitable knowledge that people become attached to their viewpoints, especially once they’ve committed themselves to a particular course? Indeed, it is this commitment and inability to change which is at the heart of cognitive dissonance – because we don’t want to admit that we are wrong, especially when a decision is hard to revoke.

In my opinion, cell phone ownership is likely to belong in the latter camp. Cell phones tend to be very expensive and are often coupled with extended contracts with one service or another that can be difficult to break. Thus, if someone admits that the other phone (one that they didn’t select or that isn’t available through their provider) is better, they are stuck with something that they can’t get out of, at least not without significant cost. This is true for most of the major decisions in life – cars, politics, and firmly-held issue positions, for anything that we are likely to debate about we are also likely to have a committed opinion on.

But in this discussion, little was at stake. Both participants acknowledged their biases and the slim likelihood that they would change their mind. So is this the only way such debate can work? When both sides acknowledge that they are unlikely to be persuaded, but are open to new information? And of what value is that information, then, if people remain ultimately committed to the same course of action that they started with? Finally, can we use this idea – of a conversation to inform but not persuade, where each side can make small concessions without admitting an entire decision is at fault – to better develop open political debate? Because something is needed to prevent the instant polarization and the inevitable gridlock that characterizes so much of the political debate in our country today.

Cell phones, Type II error, and motivated reasoning

Reading the latest in the cell phone controversy reminds me of a discussion we had in J614 this past semester about Type I vs. Type II Error. Professor Dhavan Shah likes to use the example of the American judicial system to distinguish between Type I and Type II Error – Type I error is letting a guilty defendant go free, whereas Type II error is convicting an innocent person of a crime. Basically, as social scientists, we would rather miss a clear correlation than make a claim that a correlation exists that isn’t there. To back up this argument, we talked a lot in class about the claims that autism is linked to vaccination. Although research has subsequently examined this claim and not found much of a link, many people are still worried about the risks of getting their children vaccinated against many childhood diseases.

The cell phone controversy reminds me of this debate. An article today in the BBC reports on advice from the chief medical officer from Wales suggesting that children should be texting, rather than talking on their cell phones. Although Dr. Jewell admits that so far there is little evidence linking cell phone use to medical problems, he is taking the stance “better safe than sorry.” This is an interesting approach – whereas it is hard to argue against being “safe,” especially where kids are concerned, with so little information it is worrisome that such a strong approach is being taken. And the controversy over cell phone use isn’t only in England – just last month, San Francisco passed a law requiring retailers to display the amount of radiation emitted by their cell phones.

To compound the problem, other experts have warned over the problems that excessive texting can produce. Last year, The New York Times reported that physicians and psychologists were concerned about the toll of texting – both psychologically and physically. In late 2008, teens were texting an average of 80 times per day – a number that’s probably gone up. According to these doctors, texting may be causing anxiety among teens, distracting them in class, and damaging teens’ thumbs – similar to computer usage. In light of these concerns, Dr. Jewell’s pamphlets and advice about texting over talking seems premature, and possibly damaging.

As a final concern, new research in Political Behavior suggests that corrections to misleading claims by politicians often backfire. Brendan Nyhan & Jason Reifler argue that the effect of such corrections vary by political ideology. Their research suggests that people are loath to relinquish their belief in ideologically-congruent facts, even in the face of direct contradiction (for Nyhan’s appearance on NPR, click here). This research is in line with other research into motivated reasoning and processing, but provides fresh new evidence that journalists need to be very careful in putting information out there, because even when it is “disproven,” it can be hard to change people’s minds.

Free Amazon Prime for 1 year for students!

While this isn’t meant to be a deal blog, this one is too great to pass up, especially given that this is likely to be interesting to a lot of my readers. Amazon is giving away a free one-year membership to Amazon Prime for students – in other words, free two-day shipping on Amazon.com purchases. I’ve never used Amazon Prime before, but I’ve gotten some rave reviews about it, and I’ve had some problems with long waits for my super saver shipping.

To sign up for this free membership, simply follow this link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/student/signup/info. You will need to provide a .edu email address and some basic information about your enrollment. One caveat: Amazon can request proof of enrollment in classes at the University (and reserves the right to charge you for your use of the program if you can’t provide it). So if you have a .edu email address but will not be enrolled in classes anytime soon, apply at your own risk!

Crisis, opportunity, and timing

We’ve all heard the saying that “crisis” means “opportunity” and “danger.” But when thinking about the Gulf oil disaster, many remain puzzled as to why this crisis has not produced the type of sustained public outrage that other environmental disasters have. And I was one of these people, but this article in The Washington Post does an excellent job of disentangling why so little seems to have occurred after an environmental disaster of epic proportions.

Basically, the upshot of the article is that while people are angry about the oil spill, the timing works against sweeping policy changes. Two of the problems that this article cites are the bad economy – when people are worried about their next paycheck, they have little concern for more broad social problems – and the divisiveness of American politics, which cultivates a sense of mistrust.

But there is one thing worth pointing out: while the article makes the claim that public opinion polls about worries over climate have only shifted slightly since the oil spill, views of offshore drilling have been more malleable. According to research by Pew in June of this year, those who oppose offshore drilling has increased by 21% since February – from 31 to 52% of the overall public (although they agree that on issues like use of nuclear power, mass transit, and alternative energy, there has been little change). On a related point, most of the increase in opposition to offshore drilling is among Democrats and Independents, with 28 and 22-point increases respectively, compared to Republicans, whose opposition is only 12 points higher than it was in February. So clearly, partisan politics continues to influence how people perceive the issue and what should be done about it.

Whatever the cause, one thing is clear: Crisis only means “opportunity” when the timing is right.

An interesting overview of social networking sites

I came across this article in The New York Times during my daily news browsing, which claims to “[offer] a handy clip-’n’-save guide to the social networking services you’re most likely to hear about at this summer’s barbecues”. While people who are following me on this blog may not find it very helpful, it was interesting in the arguments that the author gave in terms of pros and cons for using each of these websites. Similarly, I was intrigued to see which popular social networking sites got prominently reviewed – and which were ignored altogether.

If you were writing an article to review “relevant” social networking sites, what would you include? And did you think the criticisms and accolades mentioned in this article were fair?

A new blogger

Although those who know me will admit that I’ve never been much of a blogger – in fact, I hardly ever update my news feed or my profile on Facebook – given that I hope to be a professor of new media, it seemed logical that I myself would develop some familiarity with blogging.

Given my research interests, I expect that this blog will be filled with those facts, findings, and reports that I believe interesting or relevant…not to say that everyone else will! So look forward to updates on political maneuvering, social networking, and general new media information! I will probably be linking a lot to the news stories, articles, and posts that get me interested in the topic or arouse my ire.

I’m looking forward to practicing my skills – and I hope everyone enjoys my efforts!