PERSUASION, PROPAGANDA &
ATTITUDE CHANGE: THEORIES AND
APPLICATIONS
PS 474
Mark Peffley

Attendance question: Have you purchased
the required books for the course?
1. Yes
2. No

Today
 Examples of political ads and propaganda,
Definitions
 Theories of attitude change and persuasion
 Source, Message & audience characteristics

Before turning to politicalpropaganda, a few
examples of creative & effective ads

Turn-offs: Oscar Pistorius ‘negligent,’
but not guilty of premeditated murder

Images in the news:

Political ads
 Issue ads (not just for campaigns anymore):
Gun control
 NRA
 Ad 1: Bloomberg group’s superbowl ad
 Ad in KY:
 2012 Campaign
 We’ve Heard it all before, Obama, Je 4
 Fear, Romney, Je 4

Other 2012 ads

“Classic” examples of
political propaganda
“Daisy ad,” 1964
(the power of S1 thinking)
Recent study: More negative ads by Democratic Party; negative ads
contribute to political learning.

Examples of political propaganda
Willie Horton ad, 1988
RNC Turnstile ad, 1988
Jesse Helms "Hands" ad, 1990
Harold Ford Jr not for Tennessee, 2006

Are these examples of propaganda too?
 http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-27-
2012/indecision-2012---how-is-it-that-mitt-romney-hasn-
t-crushed-this-guy-already- (Rick Santorum)
 http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-28-
2012/i-can-t-believe-it-got-better- (Fox: Numbers aren’t
real)
 Grover Norquist's Taxpayer Protection Pledge

II. What is propaganda?
Examples
Definitions

Definitions
Pratkanis & Aaronson
• Propaganda is an attempt to influence people through
the manipulation of symbols and the psychology of the
individual by playing on the individual’s prejudices and
emotions rather than a reasoned argument about the
merits of the issue.
• The goal of modern propaganda is not education or instilling the truth
or enlightenment of the public. The goal of modern propaganda is not
to inform or enlighten but to move the masses (voluntarily) to a
desired point of view, by any means necessary
• Education, more generally, should provide people with the skills
necessary to make their own decisions; it should encourage critical
thinking.

More Definitions
Page & Shapiro, The Rational Public:
• Educate: Individuals or institutions (schools, elected
officials, media, experts), that influence public opinion by
providing correct, helpful information, can be said to educate
the public.
• Mislead: Individuals or institutions that influence public
opinion by providing incorrect, biased, or selective
information, or erroneous interpretations can be said to
mislead the public.
• Manipulate: If government officials or others mislead the
public consciously and deliberately, by means of lies,
falsehoods, deception, or concealment, they manipulate
public opinion

Note: Schools aren’t only in the
education business
The State Board of
Education in Texas is one
of the largest, most
influential—and most
conservative— in the
country, and their social-studies
curriculum
guidelines will affect
students around the
country, from
kindergarten to 12th
grade, for the next 10
years. They buy or
distribute a staggering 48
million textbooks annually.

Education, Misleading or Manipulation?
Texas Board Others’ Views
 Christian activist on the Texas board: “The
philosophy of the classroom in one generation will
be the philosophy of the government in the next.”
 Students required to evaluate the contributions of
significant Americans. The names proposed
includedThurgood Marshall, Billy Graham, Newt
Gingrich, William F. Buckley Jr., Hillary Rodham
Clinton and Edward Kennedy. All passed muster
except Kennedy, who was voted down.
 “Many of us recognize that Judeo-Christian
principles were the basis of our country and that
many of our founding documents had a basis in
Scripture. As we try to promote a better
understanding of the Constitution, federalism, the
separation of the branches of government, the basic
rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, I think it will
become evident to students that the founders had a
religious motivation.”
 U.S. Historian: Were some of the founders Christian--yes
but some were deists and some agnostic. The basic principles
of the Constitution were to create a new nation based in
democratic Enlightenment principles, not religious principles.
Indeed, Enlightenment philosophy is the antithesis of religious
dogma.
 Benjamin Franklin: “When a religion is good, I conceive it will
support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God
does not take care to support it so that its professors are
obliged to call for help of the civil power, ‘tis a sign, I
apprehend, of its being a bad one.“
 President John Adams: "Nothing is more dreaded than the
national government meddling with religion.“
 President Thomas Jefferson: "I consider the government of the
United States as interdicted by the Constitution from
intermeddling with religious institutions. . . . I do not believe it
is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to
direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrine.“
 President James Madison ("Father of the Constitution" and
principal author of the First Amendment): "There is not a
shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle
with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most
flagrant violation.“

Education, Misleading or Manipulation on
Climate Change?
Texas McGraw Hill Science Text (Grade 6) Excerpt:
The Problem:
• Scientists do not disagree
about what is causing
climate change, the vast
majority (97%) of climate
papers and actively
publishing climatologists
(again 97%) agree that
human activity is
responsible.
• The Heartland Institute is
an ideologically driven
advocacy group that
receives funding from Big
Tobacco and polluters and
it is pitted against a Nobel
Peace Prize winning
scientific body (IPCC).

McGraw Hill Education, World Cultures &
Geography [Teacher Version] (Grade 6)
Is the earth flat? Can pigs fly? Some scientists disagree.

III. Why Do We live in an Age of Propaganda?
Pratkanis & Aronson, The Age of Propaganda

A. The Essential Modern Dilemma:
Persuasion as free exchange of ideas &
debate vs. “mindless propaganda”

B. Why mindless propaganda?

Announcements
 1st written assignment posted
 Study Qs for Age of Propaganda, 2nd ed. posted
 (Note: skip chs. 15-16, 22, 26-27, 29-32, 34-35, 40.
 Do not skip chapters: 12-14 & 39.

IV. Theories of attitude change:
Hovland’smessage-learning (information processing) approach
Cognitive response approach
Elaboration likelihood model (ELM)

I. Carl Hovland’s (1953) Message Learning (Information
Processing) Approach to Attitude Change:
Hovland identified the factors and the
(learning) process by which they influence
attitude change.
Factors:
“Who Says What To Whom and How and with What
Effect?”
Who = Source characteristics
What = Message
Whom = Audience
How = Medium
Effect = Persistence

Hovland’s Approach:
Process:“Message Learning” or persuasion requires some degree of
attention, comprehension, yielding & retention. 1950s to 1970s.
Between 1942 and 1945 he worked for the U.S. War Department, studying the effectiveness of training films and
information programs, especially audience resistance to persuasive communications and methods of overcoming
such resistance.
Source effects. One-sided versus two-sided messages.

Hovland example: The Influence of Source Credibility on
Communication Effectiveness, 1951.
Randomly assign Ss to: 1) Positive & Negative positions, and 2)
High & low credibility sources.
If we were doing
this study today,
what sources and
issues might we
use?

Hovland results: People more likely to accept
the position of high credibility sources, on
average (There was more to his article than
this, of course).

Hovland’s Approach: Limitations
 Neither attention nor comprehension of a message
(beyond mere exposure to it) are necessary for attitude
change.
 In other words, people can accept a message even if they didn’t
understand or pay attention to it.
 Question: Did people actually “learn” more from a high credibility
source?
 Examples:
 Feelings of pride when flags wave or patriotic music plays
 Infatuation for attractive or charismatic candidates

II. Cognitive Response Approach:
(Ch. 2 in Age of Propaganda), late 1970s.
 It’s not so much the characteristics of the
message or the source that affect persuasion,
but the thoughts running thorough our heads
that matter.
 It’s not so much whether people learn about
the message, as Hovland argued, but the fact
that people spontaneously produce evaluative
thoughts during the message presentation and
the net favorability of the thoughts is a good
predictor of the success of the persuasion.
Anthony Greenwald
Now studies implicit
attitudes we are not
aware of

Cognitive Response Approach:
(Greenwald)
 A successful persuasion tactic is one that
directs and channels thoughts so that the
target thinks in a manner agreeable to the
communicator’s point of view (p. 31).
 The key is to disrupt any negative thoughts
and promote positive thoughts about the
proposed course of action.
 Political examples? Healthcare?
 Persuasion techniques in Age of Propaganda:
Inoculation & Forewarning

Cognitive Response Approach: Limitations
 Still doesn’t deal with mindless propaganda.
In fact, the CR approach assumes people are
very active and thoughtful. But again, we
know from research that attitude change can
occur when people don’t think and are
relatively mindless.
 How does this occur?
 Elaboration Likelihood Method.

III. Elaboration (thinking) Likelihood
Model (ELM), R.E. Petty & John Cacciopo
 There are both Central (thoughtful) and
Peripheral (mindless) routes to persuasion.
 Central and Peripheral routes to persuasion fall at
opposite ends of a continuum in terms of the
amount of effortful message evaluation (i.e.,
“elaboration” or thinking) they require.
 Note: Central and Peripheral are analogous to S2
and S1 thinking (Kahneman, Thinking: Fast & Slow).
 The ELM tells us not only what factors
(message, source) are important, but when
they will be influential (depending on route)
and how (consequences of attitudes).
Petty now studies
implicit attitudes
Cacciopo now studies
neuroscience.

Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)
 Central route processing (S2): High thinking:
when people carefully and effortfully evaluate
the info relevant to the merits of the
message.
 Persistence of change.
 Peripheral route (S1): Low thinking:
“Cognitive misers” rely on simpler cues (e.g.,
source, fear appeals) to make quick
evaluations and decisions.
 Short-lived change.

Sources of high versus low thinking
When do we think about the message? Need two things:
 Motivation to think is affected by:
 The perceived personal relevance of the communication. When
personal relevance is low, argument scrutiny is low and attitudes are
affected more by peripheral cues such as source cues.
 Question: When are people motivated to overcome low motivation
to process political messages?
 Ability to think. Higher ability if: 1) Message repetition, 2) Lack of
external distractions, 3) Knowledge.
 If the argument is weak or if you don’t want people to scrutinize the
message too carefully, distract them because making the message
difficult to understand reduces their ability to scrutinize it and
increases reliance on simple cues.

Petty & Cacciopo, 1981
 Undergraduates were either told a
proposal for taking comprehensive
exams was for next year (high
relevance) or 10 years later (low
relevance)
 Arguments were either strong or
weak for the exams.
 Source of the argument was either
an expert or not.
 Findings:
 Argument strength makes a bigger
difference for students for whom the
exams had high personal relevance.
 Source of argument more important for
students with low personal relevance.

Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM):
Putting it all together
More thinking results in attitude formation and change that is:
• more permanent, more predictive of behavior, and more resistant to fading and
counterattacks.
But, More thinking (central route) requires both:
Motivation to process the message, AND
Ability to process the message
Otherwise, we rely on peripheral cues and attitude change is more temporary, unstable and more
susceptible to fading and counterattacks.

Why does high thinking make such a
big difference?
 High thinking:
 Attitudes are based on more knowledge and are
more accessible.
 More confidence in one’s views.
 Note: We can also become more confident and
certain if we just think we are right

Implications of ELM
 ELM as a theory of persuasion not only
identifies what factors (e.g., source) influence
persuasion but when they are more and less
effective for persuasion.
 Mindless propaganda via peripheral route
processing is often much easier and effective
than infomercials using central route
processing that requires people to think,
especially when rational ignorance or S1
thinking predominates.

Examples of ELM
 Healthcare arguments
 Source:
 Message:
 Easy (Death panels, socialized medicine) vs. Hard (complex policy)
 Audience ability and motivation: knowledge, partisanship, personal
relevance
 Peripheral cues:

Hovland’s (1953) Message-Learning
(Information Processing) Approach
 “Who says What to Whom and How and
with what Effect?”
 Source of communication
 Credibility (e.g., Swift Boat ads, endorsements)
 Attractiveness (celebrities?)
 Message characteristics
 Visual images
 Fear arousal
 Audience characteristics

Source characteristics
Class discussion here goes beyond
Age of Propaganda, Chs, 12-14
(required reading).
Here we cover additional, political
considerations beyond psychological
principles.

Additional political considerations
 Judgments about trustworthiness are likely to
vary across different types of messages and
audiences.
 Foreign policy versus domestic policy.
 Foreign policy messages: Obama’s foreign policy
messages versus 9/11 under Bush.
 In politics, disparaging the source is a popular
tactic. Why?
 In politics today, it’s often hard to know
whether the source can be trusted. Why?

Examples of propaganda that focuses
on the source of the message
Use a highly credible source to give weight
to thin, ambiguous or confusing evidence.
Disparaging the source is easier than
responding to a disagreeable message on
its merits.
Colin Powell making the case
for invading Iraq at the UN
http://www.youtube.com/wa
tch?v=EqzKKFJSPvc

Another strategy: Sources emphasize their
credentials (credibility), but hide their
conflict of interest (trustworthiness)
NYT: What you don’t know about the source:
Message Machine
Behind Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand , 2005
A PENTAGON CAMPAIGN Retired officers have been used to shape
terrorism coverage from inside the TV and radio networks.
Most of the “analysts” have ties to military contractors vested in
the very war policies they are asked to assess on air. But we
aren’t told that.

Columnists (and other sources) sometimes fail to disclose
conflicts of interest
EX1: Scientists who fail to disclose conflict of interest:
pharmaceutical and biomedical research funded by private
companies.
EX2: NYT: “On Opinion Page, a Lobby's Hand Is Often Unseen”
 Doug Bandow, a scholar for the libertarian Cato Institute and a columnist for the
Copley News Service, resigned from both after acknowledging that he had received
as much as 2,000 an article from Mr. Abramoff for writing in support of his lobbying
clients, including Indian tribe casinos.
 The Bush administration acknowledged this year that it had paid outside writers,
including Armstrong Williams, the conservative columnist and television
commentator, to promote the Education Department policy known as No Child Left
Behind.
 Bottom line: Columnists and other sources often fail to disclose
conflicts of interest.

Attacking the character of a candidate undermines their
credibility as a source of all their messages.
Swift Vets and POWs for Truth
What is “swiftboating”?

Politico, 2012: Verdict is in:
Obama levels more personal attacks
2012 Obama ads argued that there's something
fundamentally wrong with his opponent.
Of course, in his
first 4 years,
Obama was
subjected to so
many personal
assaults from the
right, on issues
such as whether
he is lying about
his place of birth,
his religion or the
content of his
college transcripts.

Swiftboating ads were largely untrue but
effective for Independents.
 Factcheck.org, Annenberg on Swiftboating
 Republican-funded Group Attacks
Kerry's War Record
 August 6, 2004
 Updated: August 22, 2004
 Ad features vets who claim Kerry "lied"
to get Vietnam medals.”
 But other witnesses disagree -- and so
do Navy records.

Swiftboating worked.
Effectiveness of “Any Questions” ad:
Independents’ intentions to vote for Kerry affected most. Why?

Celebrity endorsements

Celebrity endorsements

Political endorsements

Source effects
Question: Which source characteristic is more
important in politics—trust or competence?

Message Characteristics
Visual images
Fear arousal
One- vs. Two-Sided Messages (P&A)

The 30-minute infomercial: A
perfect message?

Visual images: Seeing is believing?
A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words?

FOX Irate Over Un-Retouched
Sarah Palin Photo

Why do visual images (vivid
appeals) work?
 Hint: see P&A, ch . 19
Video image from a President Bush campaign ad entitled 'Tested,'
released Wednesday, March 3, 2004, showing the aftermath at the
World Trade Center. Bush's re-election campaign is being criticized
for using images from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, including
wreckage of the World Trade Center. (Photo/Bush-Cheney 2004

Summary of Fear Appeal Research
• Show sufficient threat
• moderate to high fear appeals are
most effective (not low or too high)
• Show sufficient efficacy
• introducing an effective solution or
course of action strengthens a fear
appeal (e.g., vote for me)
• when efficacy is low, the individual
may rely on defensive avoidance to
lower their fear.
This Is Your Brain on Drugs

Responses to fear appeals in health
research: Fear is good
 If people view a threat as serious and relevant (e.g., “I’m susceptible to
contracting a terrible disease”), they become scared. Their fear
motivates them to take some sort of action—any action—that will
reduce their fear.
 Best ways to create fear: magnify the severity of the threat (i.e., the
magnitude of harm) and references to the likelihood of experiencing the
threat with vivid language and pictures.
 Question: will people act to control the danger of the threat (by avoiding
risky behavior) or just control their fear about the threat (through denial,
avoidance, etc.)?
 If people don’t think the recommended response works . Or think they
aren’t able to do the recommended response, they are motivated to
control their fear and focus on eliminating their fear through
 denial (e.g., “I’m not at risk for getting skin cancer, it won’t happen to me”),
 defensive avoidance (e.g., “This is just too scary, I’m simply not going to
think about it”), or
 reactance (e.g., “They’re just trying to manipulate me, I’m going to ignore
them”).

Fear Appeals and Message Acceptance:
Moderate levels of fear are most effective
 Fear appeals have
both facilitating
and inhibiting
effects. Add these
two effects
together and you
get the red line of
actual effects.
 Facilitative effects
at lower levels:
attracts attention
and interest in the
message and may
motivate the
receiver to act to
resolve the threat.
 Inhibiting effects at
very high levels:
emotionally block
the message by
tuning it out,
perceiving it
selectively or

Edinburgh, Scotland

Australian anti-smoking campaign
“Our quit smoking campaigns are credited
with contributing to a 5 per cent reduction
in the adult smoking rates since 2003.This
equates to more than 180,000 fewer
smokers in NSW.”

French ad campaign,
“Smoking is harmful to your breath”

Anti-smoking ads are effective,
but…
 Although…
 Tobacco use is the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the
United States, killing more than 400,000 Americans every
year, according to the C.D.C.
 Antismoking programs actually work.
 Big cuts: 2012: States are on track to collect a
record 25.7 billion in tobacco taxes and
settlement money, but they are set to spend less
than 2 percent of that on prevention.
 Kentucky:
 Ranks 40th among states in the amount of money spent to
persuade people to quit or never start smoking
 The state has the nation's second-highest adult smoking
rate, as well the highest rate of smoking-related deaths.
Most alarming of all, Kentucky is encouraging more
smokers: The smoking rate among high schoolers is the
highest in the U.S.

Examples of political fear appeals
LBJ, 1964 RMN, 1968
Colin Powell holding a
model vial of anthrax
while giving a
presentation to
the United Nations
Security Council

The Construction of a Fear Appeal I:
 March, 1947: To sell the
400 million Marshall Plan
to rebuild Europe after
WWII:
 In the words of Truman, the
speech was designed to
“Scare the hell out of the
American people ”

The Construction of a Fear Appeal II:
“We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Iraq_Group
 September 5, 2002: In a WHIG meeting,
chief Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson
proposes the use of a "smoking
gun/mushroom cloud" metaphor to sell the
American public on the supposed nuclear
dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.
 September 7, 2002, Condoleezza Rice: "We know that he has the
infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon…we don't want
the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
 October 7, President Bush: “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for
the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a
mushroom cloud.
 October 14, 2002: President Bush says of Saddam "This is a man that we
know has had connections with al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment,
would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army." [6]
 January 21, 2003: Bush says of Saddam "He has weapons of mass destruction
-- the world's deadliest weapons -- which pose a direct threat to the United
States, our citizens and our friends and allies." [7]
 February 5, 2003: Colin Powell addresses the United Nations, asserting that
there was "no doubt in my mind" that Saddam was working to obtain key
components to produce nuclear weapons.
 March 19, 2003: The U.S. invades Iraq.

Fear appeals were followed with optimistic
assessments of the risk of going to war
 How Someone Always Wrong Is Always on TV

Obama & ISIS
 Reluctant to use
fear?
 “He is ambivalent,
and I think it
shows,” Jennifer
Shelton-
Armstrong, a 45-
year-old
Democrat in
Mission Viejo,
California, said in
a follow-up
interview. “There
is no clear plan.”

Effectiveness of Political Ads

Just how effective are typical
political ads in elections?
 Do they move the needle (voting intentions)?
 The impact is usually at the margins in competitive races.
 How long do the effects last?
 Do they influence attitudes even if they don’t
affect our voting behavior?
 Tough to answer.
 Political consultants inflate their effectiveness. Why?
 Need a scientific method to assess causality in a natural
environment: Field experiments
 Internal and external validity.

“Rick Perry and His Eggheads: Inside the
Brainiest Political Operation in America”
 From Sasha Isenberg's book, The Victory Lab.
 In the 2006 governor’s race in TX, four
political scientists invited into Rick
Perry’s war room to run experiments
testing the effectiveness of: candidate
appearances, TV ads, robocalls, direct
mail.
 These were the political world’s version
of randomized drug trials.
 ‘Moneyball’ Meets Campaigning

The field experiments
 2 million of incumbent’s (Perry’s) television
and radio advertising deployed
experimentally.
 In each experimental media market, the
launch date and volume of television
advertising were randomly assigned.
 Tracking poll of 1,000 registered voters each
day.

Findings: Televised ads have strong
but short-lived effects on voting
preferences.
“Political ads are a bit like morphine: you need dose after dose for them to
keeping working.”

More research on effectiveness of ads
 Strong but short-lived
 Campaign ads matter more when a
candidate can outspend the opponent.

Implications?
 The effectiveness of some ads is
exaggerated.
 Most political ads seem to appeal to
peripheral route persuasion with short-term
effects.

The impact of political
propaganda depends on audience
characteristics, especially
partisanship
Party Cues, Motivated
Reasoning, Persuasion &
Resistance

Political Misperceptions, Cognitive
Dissonance, Motivated Reasoning, and
Resistance to Persuasion
Misinformation can be worse than no information

Two examples of partisan
misperceptions
 July, 2006: widespread support for the
conspiracy theory that Bush administration
officials were complicit in the 9/11 terrorist
attacks.
 “likely” that “[p]eople in the federal government
either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to
stop the attacks because they wanted the United
States to go to war in the Middle East.”
 Apr 21, 2011: CBS News/ New York Times poll:
25% of all Americans incorrectly think President
Obama was not born in the United States.

Two examples of partisan
misperceptions
• Democrats more likely to
believe 9/11 conspiracy
theory
• Republicans more likely
to believe birther myth

2004, “separate realities”
More than a year after the Iraq invasion, after several
reports by the U.S. govt., Republicans more likely to believe:

Findings of Commissions on Iraq War, WMD
& al-Qaeda, prior to 2004 election
 1/28/04: U.S. Iraq Survey Group inspector David Kay resigns:
 stating that he believed WMD stockpiles would not be found in Iraq. "I
don't think they existed," commented Kay. “It turns out that we were all
wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing. [Kay,]
 3/5/04: Former chief U.N. weapons inspector declares Iraq war illegal
 10/7/04: Final Iraq Survey Group (Duelfer) Report (U.S.): Iraq did not
have WMD
 “Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time
of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to
produce them.”
 June, 2004, 9/11 Commission:
 "to date we have seen no evidence of a collaborative operational relationship
between Iraqi government & al-Qaeda. Nor have we seen evidence indicating
that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks
against the United States.

Misperceptions due to?
1. Elites: spread misinformation; media fails to correct
it.
2. Citizens (partisans): Engage in motivated reasoning.

We are rationalizing animals
(Ch 4)
 Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger)
 Cognitive dissonance is a state of tension and
discomfort that occurs whenever a person holds two
cognitions that are psychologically inconsistent (e.g.,
“Smoking is a dumb thing to do because it could kill
me” and “I smoke two packs a day”). Resolution:
 “I’ll quit tomorrow (when I’m older).”
 “It helps me lose weight.”
 “I’ll beat the odds.”
 “I smoke filtered cigarettes.”
 “We all have to go sometime.”
 “Hack, hack, hack: would you please put that cig in my
tracheotomy hole?”

Cognitive dissonance examples
 Seekers cult
 Post-decision bolstering when options were close
 Self-justification: “I did not have sex with that woman” “I am not a crook,”
 Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad
Decisions, and Hurtful Acts
 Bush, 3/06: "More fighting and sacrifice will be required to achieve this victory,
and for some, the temptation to retreat and abandon our commitments is
strong," said Mr. Bush. "Yet, there is no peace, there's no honor, and there's no
security in retreat.“
 More powerful and dangerous than lying: Doing something stupid or bad was the
best thing I could have done. In fact, come to think of it, it was the right thing.
“There was nothing else I could have done.” “Actually, it was a brilliant solution to
the problem.” “I was doing what was best for the nation.” “Those bastards
deserved what they got.” “I’m entitled.”
 LBJ had a remarkable capacity to convince himself that whatever the most
politically expedient position was at the time, it had always been his principled
position, was the only true position and his enemies were against the truth.
Impervious to self-correction: Vietnam quagmire.
 Challenges rational choice view that people make decisions based on
information and pressures of which they are aware.

Motivated reasoning: Who, When,
How, with what Implications?
Ziva Kunda, social psychologist
Taber & Lodge, political scientists

Goals in information processing
and belief updating
1. Accuracy goals (intuitive statistician, rational choice
version): seek out and carefully consider relevant evidence
to reach a correct or otherwise best conclusion.
a) Bayes’ Theorem: We respond to new information the way a
scientist or statistician would respond to evidence in an
experiment, without bias:
p(S|E) = p(E|S )p(S )
p(E)
 Because our prior beliefs should not bias new information, there
should be some updating or belief revision when we encounter new
information inconsistent with our prior beliefs.
 Normative model of belief updating.
 Do people follow this model for political belief updating?

Goals in information processing
2. Efficiency (cognitive misers): our prior beliefs
operate as “cold” cognitions, biasing the
processing of new information, by directing our
attention, retention, recall and interpretation of
information.
 One source of bias in perceptions & judgment.

Goals in information processing
3. Partisan goals (Motivated reasoning):
a. (Talking about “partisan” in the broadest sense = having a prior
committed position on an issue.)
b. Tendency for people to use their reasoning powers to process
new information in a biased way to support their prior beliefs.
c. Even when told to be accurate, citizens are often pulled by the
emotional charge of their “hot political cognitions.”
 Often immediately and without intentional control, a perceived
candidate, issue, group, or idea is classified as either good or bad,
and in a matter of milliseconds this evaluation prompts motivated
reasoning.
 All political stimuli have an emotional charge.

Political concepts in memory associated
with affect

Examples:
 Has the national economy gotten better or
worse over the last year?
 A relatively objective judgment, not like a
candidate’s personal characteristics
 But, members of the president’s party almost
always have rosier perceptions of the economy
than members of the opposition party.
 International:
 Are there WMD, was Hussein collaborating with Al
Qaida?

Who is more susceptible to
motivated reasoning and when?
 Who? Those with more motivation & ability to
defend their attitudes.
 Partisans with stronger prior attitudes have greater
motivation to defend their attitudes.
 More Sophisticated partisans have greater ability
(knowledge) to defend their attitudes.
 When? The message arouses partisanship
 Party or issue elites provide cues
 Message promotes a defensive response: When
communications are charged with partisan conflict
that challenges identities and attitudes (e.g.,
presidential elections).

How does motivated reasoning bias our
evaluation of political information?
 Even though participants in their experiments are
instructed repeatedly to “set their feelings aside,” to
“rate the arguments fairly,” and to be as “objective as
possible”…
 Selective exposure: people seek out supportive
arguments.
 Confirmation bias: people treat evidence that supports
their priors as stronger and actively counter-argue
challenging evidence.
 What effect? The net effect will be attitude polarization.
 Q: Is MR more or less likely to occur in the current
political environment? Why?

Mechanisms of MR: Lodge & Taber
1. Selective exposure: People tend to
seek out information that confirms
their beliefs and avoid information
that is inconsistent with those views.
 using a computerized information board,
political sophisticates were more likely to
choose to read the arguments of
sympathetic sources than to expose
themselves to an opposing point of view on
affirmative action and gun control.
 As a result, they polarized: subjects who
were most biased in their information
search became more extreme in their
attitudes.

Selective exposure

Evidence: Lodge & Taber
2. Confirmation & Disconfirmation biases: Partisans process
information with a bias toward their pre-existing views,
disparaging contradictory information while uncritically
accepting information that is consistent with their
beliefs
 When people are asked to rate the strength of arguments,
sophisticates and those with strong priors were biased in rating
the arguments with which they agreed as stronger than those
with which they disagreed.
 **Ps are instructed repeatedly** to “set their feelings aside,” to “rate
the arguments fairly,” and to be as “objective as possible.”
 Attitude polarization results when people seize upon consistent
evidence with little scrutiny, while dismissing out-of-hand evidence that
challenges their prior attitudes

Rate the arguments

Lodge & Taber evidence of
motivated reasoning
Prior
attitudes
are
Bigger
bias
Pro-attitudinal arguments tend to be rated as stronger than counter-attitudinal
arguments. See largest bias for sophisticates and strong priors.

Health Care Misperceptions:
Evidence of motivated reasoning
.

Implications
 Sophisticated partisans may be more, not less, biased in
their evaluations than unsophisticated partisans.
 Sophisticated partisans often blindly follow party elites
without scrutinizing the quality of arguments.
 They are more aware of what elites are saying, and have greater
ability and motivation to engage in motivated reasoning.
 Once formed, their attitudes, which might be misinformed, resist
correction.
 Partisan cues can be a powerful means of getting partisans to
accept new attitudes that are resistant to change.

Gaines et al. “Partisan Motivation and
Opinion on Iraq”
How did different partisan groups respond to the
changing realities in Iraq?

How did Republicans & Democrats become so
polarized on the Iraq war?
 Did they see different facts, ignore reality?
 Or were their interpretations of the facts
radically different because they engaged in
partisan reasoning?

Partisan polarization in support for Iraq War,
2003-2007

Perceptions of Scientific Consensus
Dan Kahan, et al. “Cultural Cognition of Scientific
Consensus”
Why do members of the public disagree—sharply and
persistently—about facts on which expert scientists
largely agree?
Quick answer: Motivated reasoning occurs, which creates
polarization

Why do liberals and conservatives evaluate
scientific consensus so differently?
Most citizens don’t evaluate the scientific evidence directly, they evaluate
the perceived consensus and expertise of scientists
 Possible ways prior beliefs influence perceived
consensus:
 Selective exposure: People tend to search out
information consistent with their prior beliefs, which is
easier to do with cable news & internet sources
 Recall of instances of experts taking a position
consistent with their beliefs
 Perceptions of “expert” credibility
 When people encounter scientists whose evidence conflicts
with their beliefs, they have a low opinion of their credibility

Perceptions of scientific consensus
 “Tell me whether you think most scientific experts
agree with these statements:”
 Global temperatures are increasing.
 Human activity is causing global warming.
 Radioactive wastes from nuclear power can be safely
disposed of in deep underground storage facilities.
 Permitting adults without criminal records or
histories of mental illness to carry concealed
handguns in public decreases violent crime.
 Note: There is a scientific consensus on all but
the last statement, where there is no consensus.

Experiment: Evaluate the credibility of
scientists whose research is described as either
supporting or not supporting global warming,
nuclear power & gun control.

Read book excerpts of fictional scientists: --
Respondents randomly assigned to 1 of 2 opposing excerpts of
fictional scientists.

Experimental Results: Evaluations of the scientist’s
credibility are in the eye of the perceiver.
What this chart should show: Liberals and conservatives evaluate the
scientist who agrees with them as more credible

Postscript: Scientific Consensus
 Global temperatures are increasing.
 Human activity is causing global warming.
 NUKE. Radioactive wastes from nuclear power
can be safely disposed of in deep underground
storage facilities.
 Permitting adults without criminal records or
histories of mental illness to carry concealed
handguns in public decreases violent crime.
 Note: There is a scientific consensus on all but
the last statement, where there is no
consensus.

Postscript II: Counter-example
 Why have attitudes on gay marriage changed
so dramatically in the last decade?
 2004: GOP strategy to mobilize religious right by
placing constitutional amendments on the ballot
 2012: Amendments are being struck down and
public support for gay marriage has increased
dramatically.