Polarized speech: A function of self-persuasion
Date:
April 1, 2022
Source:
Carnegie Mellon University
Summary:
A new study finds competitive debaters, randomly assigned a
position, persuade themselves to the superiority of their side,
even if it falls contrary to their own personal beliefs.
FULL STORY ==========================================================================
A new study finds competitive debaters, randomly assigned a position,
persuade themselves to the superiority of their side, even if it falls
contrary to their own personal beliefs. This suggests self-persuasion is
a significant and resilient contributor to polarization and disagreement
on policy. The results are available in the April 1 issue of the journal American Economic Review.
========================================================================== "Politicians are in the business of persuasion," said Peter Schwardmann, assistant professor in social and decision sciences at Dietrich
College of Humanities and Social Sciences and contributing author on the
study. "This work gives us a window into politics and how a politician's beliefs may evolve." Polarization in society is on stark display in
the U.S. Congress. No matter how much people communicate, we seem to be
growing further and further apart.
While self-persuasion has been studied in the laboratory setting,
Schwardmann and a team of researchers know that this phenomenon is not
confined to the lab.
They used data gathered during international debate competitions to
explore how self-persuasion influences an individual's factual belief
and confidence when defending a position.
"We find that competitive debates lead to polarization, because people
persuade themselves that their side is right even before the debate
starts," said Joe"l van der Weele, associate professor at the Center for Research in Experimental Economics and Political Decision Making at the University of Amsterdam. Van der Weele is a contributing author on the
study. "The debate itself does not lead to convergence of opinions,
so the initial polarization persists, even when we ask them a day
after the debate." Data collection took place at four competitions
(2019, 2020 and 2021) that involved more than 400 participants from 58 countries. At the beginning of every debate, each team was presented
with a topic and randomly assigned to either the supporting or opposing position. Teams received 15 minutes to prepare their defenses -- without
time for research -- before engaging in an hour-long debate that followed
the procedures of British Parliamentary debating rules.
Schwardmann and his colleagues gathered three types of surveys to evaluate participants' thoughts on a topic throughout each competition. They took
a baseline survey before the event, a second survey before each debate and
a final survey after each debate. The surveys evaluated the participants' factual beliefs in the motion being argued, confidence in the strength of
their position and how personal attitudes aligned with the argued motion.
The researchers found self-persuasion occurs despite incentives
for accuracy and persists even after exposure to opposing views. In
addition, participants were inclined to believe a statement was true if
it strengthened their argument for an assigned position.
"We like to think that we are rational people who base [our] opinions
on fact, but we often end up with the opinions that are 'convenient'
or strategically useful in a given context," said van der Weele. "The
apparent ease with which we do this, even in a setting where these
opinions have been induced in an explicitly random manner, should lead
us to question our own opinions much more, or simply take them less
seriously." Self-persuasion can drive political beliefs and limit the
ability to resolve conflict. Schwardmann is interested in exploring this
topic further, with a focus on whether greater confidence in a position actually helps with persuading others.
"The exchange of ideas during a competitive debate does not lead people
to reach consensus," said Schwardmann. "A useful strategy to avoid self-persuasion may require a more collaborative approach to arrive at
the truth." Schwardmann and van der Weele were joined on the project, "Self-Persuasion: Evidence from Field Experiments at International
Debating Competitions," by Egon Tripodi at the University of Essex. The
project received funding from the CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition,
the Research Priority Area Behavioral Economics at the University
of Amsterdam, the Dutch Science Foundation, the European University
Institute and the Russell Sage Foundation.
========================================================================== Story Source: Materials provided by Carnegie_Mellon_University. Original written by Stacy Kish. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.
========================================================================== Journal Reference:
1. Peter Schwardmann, Egon Tripodi, Joe"l J. van der
Weele. Self-Persuasion:
Evidence from Field Experiments at International Debating
Competitions.
American Economic Review, 2022; 112 (4): 1118 DOI:
10.1257/aer.20200372 ==========================================================================
Link to news story:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/04/220401122233.htm
--- up 4 weeks, 4 days, 10 hours, 50 minutes
* Origin: -=> Castle Rock BBS <=- Now Husky HPT Powered! (1:317/3)