Listen to this Podcast
More 60-Second Mind
-
Memory Loss during Menopause
6/12/13 -
The Quirk of a High IQ
6/6/13
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]
The viral photo of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in her stars and stripes bikini, proudly gripping a rifle, flooded Internet wires—only to spread once more when the photo proved to be a fake.
But the image's influence holds, even though it's a fraud. And 2006 research by John Bullock of Yale University supports the lasting influence of misinformation.
Bullock showed subjects the transcript of an ad created by a pro-choice group stating that John Roberts, then a Supreme Court nominee, had supported violence against abortion clinics.
Then subjects were shown an unequivocal refutation of the ad.
56 percent of the Democrats had disapproved of Roberts before seeing the ad, but that percentage jumped to 80 after seeing the false information.
Here's the interesting part: After the ad was discredited, the percentage of Democrats against Roberts dropped—but only to 72 percent, so the number who were unsupportive remained higher than before exposure to the ad.
Interestingly, Republican disapproval also rose after reading the ad transcript, but returned to the baseline after the ad was debunked.
As we may have already intuitively concluded: the lasting impact of misinformation during campaigns seems to be dependent on subjects' preexisting views as to whether they buy into negative (or positive) information about a candidate.
Remember this, when we read in the papers that nearly a third of voters believe, incorrectly, that Barack Obama is Muslim. Perhaps because of inaccurate rumors that Obama took his oath on the Koran, instead of, as is the true case, on the Bible.
60-Second Psych is a weekly podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes
See what we're tweeting about
16 Comments
Add CommentKoran, Bible, whatever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll take my oath on the Principia, or it might as well be a copy of Harry Potter.
But yeah, negativity sticks. I always thought it was because it's safer to remember negative things than to forget it. Fire=hot, Tiger=Baaaad, Spears=Ow!!!... The day a lion doesn't come after you, and you get the idea that well, perhaps all that hubub was just a misunderstanding... mulitply by a few bazillion generations, and here we are.
Belifs often shape a campain much more than facts. That isd why Kerry was swift boated out in 2004 . This is something democrates have to look out for. Also there is amoust Repulcians that I have talked to that Obama is a left wing radical which is of corse false but thier belifs will dominate that parties views.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso education has a great deal of imapct on voting . I have found that my talks with Repuclians that they don't know or worse they don't understand world affairs. They only understand a limited amount. Therefor In my viewpoint I feel Republicans are often very ignorant people who are unenformed .
A political campain has to create brand awareness but are often hampered by the percived packaging . For Barack Obama I feel there will be voters who will not vote for him because he black a demorcrate.
In the case of Sarah Palin is a trick to use sex appeal to get the electrote moving. It might work but as a candiate who we need to govern this is a poor decision .
Both sides are showing their stuff in the media, but far more cowardly, both are having their proponents say things they never would. The liberal media is obviously in love with Obama, and shows 90% more coverage of him, and 300% of any gaff by Republicans. On the other side, the talk shows on a number of radio stations and Fox have a preference towards Republicans, and some also spread misinformation about Obama. Two sides of the same leaf.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis effect is at the base of the failure of capitalism, politics, etc... If the exposure of lies and distortions actually dissuaded people from erroneous beliefs, then the system would work. It would go: Lie -> Refutation -> Correction of thought -> Antipathy toward liar. But it doesn't. So the campaign/company/ad agency that lies actually benefits more from that lie than they suffer from the stigma of being liars. Lying, then is the best policy in the long run.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat JasonWilkes implies about the media is simply not true: Sarah Palin is getting more coverage than anyone. And if someone dares to criticize her s/he is labeled a sexist and the criticism is dismissed. Americans live in Disneyland. McCain is a dwarf (an evil one), Palin is a witch posing as Snow White (on steroids), and Obama is just an extra who never really had a chance. It is a good thing that the Empire is crumbling down: the rest of the world will breathe better without an american boot on their necks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"the lasting impact of misinformation during campaigns seems to be dependent on subjects' preexisting views"; clearly, Democrats are incapable of correcting the effect of misinformation after exposure of a lie. Which is natural, since "feelings" of invincible moral superiority are the core of their positions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswfitz1964 illustrates ignorance through misspelled words and misshapen thoughts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAndre Vidal is correct that the media is covering Palin but they are trying to harm her.
It may be telling that both Democrats and Republicans are swayed by lies but that Republicans return to base line when told the truth. Democrats still believe the lies even when faced with the truth. Who propagates 9/11 conspiracy theories? TV and movie star crazies as well as some Democrats.
The Kerry “Swiftboat-ing” had many threads of truth and the only documentation was that which was submitted by Kerry in HIS after action report. It’s hard to get a whole squadron of Swift boat officers to voice a consistent lie. So an objective voter would side with the squadron of officers rather than a self serving report.
“An oft told lie becomes truth.”
“Accuse your opponent of your misdeeds so that the response with the ring of truth is diminished.”
One candidate for president is practicing these tenets to the hilt with respect to the Fannie and Freddy meltdown and his lies are taken as truth. You know who and if you don’t then shame on you.
"The desire to own a clear conscience should never be underestimated", some wise words by M. Junaid Levesque-Alam.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many times have the justifications for the war in Iraq changed? I believe the currently accepted one is that it is a war to "liberate" the iraqian people, even though they didn't ask for it, and that more iraqis, including many women and children, were killed by U.S. troops in 5 years than by Saddam Hussein's police and military in 24. But american consumers don't want to hear about that, or about the fact that no country in the last half-century comes even close to the U.S. in the number of innocent civilians killed. All in the name of "freedom" and "democracy". That the american people still believe all the lies they've been told (by democrats as well as by republicans, and at least since the unnecessary atomic bombing of Japan) just proves that their ignorance is only matched by their arrogance.
By repeating this false canard you provide an interesting example of the tide of misinformation. In fact, McCain receives far more sympathetic coverage than Obama.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example, according to a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, between June 8 and July 21, 2008 coverage by the major broadcast media of Barack Obama was 72% negative, while that of John McCain was only 57% negative.
And your information came from ... where? Fox "News"? Rush Limbaugh?
What is telling, co2dog is that you draw a baseless conclusion from the data. The observation that Republicans returned to "baseline" seems more related to the fact that the initial misinformation and the subsequent correction related to a right wing Supreme Court nominee. If the study had been balanced by an experiment presenting misinformation about a liberal Supreme Court justice and then retracting it, you might have some evidence to back up your remark.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt didn't and you don't.
The assertion made by both Brian H. and co2dog that Democrats are uniquely subject to the effects of misinformation is not supported by this study, which did not test the contervailing proposition adequately.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn two out of three study groups false information was presented about a Republican and then later rebutted. There was no parallel test in which misinformation was presented about a liberal Democrat and then rebutted. So the assertion that Republicans always "return to baseline", when presented with "correct" information wasn't adequately tested.
When the third study group in this report was presented with unfavorable misinformation about the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, Republicans proved to be just as resistant to subsequent retraction. This isn't an exact counterpart to the other two study groups, but the author concludes, nevertheless, that "Democrats who heard bad things about a Republican will be relatively unmoved by a correction stating that the bad things they learned were untrue. And the reverse is true for Republicans who hear bad things about a Democrat. " How does he know this? He didn't test it. By the same token, neither Brian H. nor co2dog know the truth of their statements.
It's a poorly designed experiment and the article about it is even worse, because it doesn't present all the facts. By describing only one of the study groups, the article supports a false conclusion. It's interesting, however, that Brian H. and co2dog are so eager to extract a conclusion that they want to believe from this incomplete and shoddy experiment. Is this a uniquely Republican characteristic? If I were like them, I'd say "yes." In fact, like the conclusions they draw, it would be an unfounded generalization. It's too bad they're not as objective.
Republicans are ignorant? Ignorance knows no party: it is widely and evenly distributed. Huck Finn said to Tom Sawyer "Now don't you worry none, Tom. We've got the ignorant folks on our side, and that's a workin' majority in any town."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is true that the experiment was one sided and that Republicans would return to base line while Democrats would rather continue to hold their belief since it fit their world view for a Republican jurist. There are measurable facts and emotional facts; in general Republicans run on measurements and Democrats run on feelings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, watching the dynamics of the campaign, it is apparent that Democrats would rather cling to their beliefs than face the truth. How many Democrats still believe that McCain is too old to use e-mail even when told that he cannot because of his prisoner of war injuries? Remember McCain was a fighter jock and flew a high tech machine more advanced that any of us have ever seen. You know that he knows the value of technology and information.
How many Democrats do not believe that Obama has the past CEO and executives of Fannie and Freddy on his staff or advising him?
There are flat earth Republicans for whom observed facts will not change their religious beliefs but at least they are not killing babies. And, there are Democrats, including Obama, who believe that child that survives an abortion should be left to die. His actions and words are facts that he now tries to deny.
Did you read the article co2dog? If you did then you realize you don't have any information to back up your claim that democrats are the only ones swayed by lies. The conclusion was pre-existing views shaped the results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou, in fact, contradict your own conclusion. You admit the Swift Boat Veterans campaign contained "threads of truth." Pretty thin, in other words. Yet you support what they say, even though they have been discredited. It seems your pre-existing views shaped how you reacted to the campaign and the revelation that it was lies. Democrats aren't the only ones.
co2dog admits that the experiment was one sided, yet still maintains that it shows a significant difference between Democrats and Republicans. Why? Because it fits his/her preconceptions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding McCain's lame excuse for not being able to use the internet, he's able to write, which requires far more fine motor skills than using a mouse or keyboard. He's been using his Vietnam War history as a general purpose excuse for forty years; why quit now?
Two former Fannie Mae/ Freddy Mac executives were marginally connected with Obama's campaign. Big deal! McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, was secretly being paid $15K per month by these corporations and lied about it.
It's always obvious, when Republicans realize they're on the losing end of a debate: they try to change the subject, for example, by bringing up abortion. You're no exception.
That McCain should use his POW injuries as an excuse for not being able to use a computer is an insult to the many thousands of handicapped americans who overcome their motor deficiencies by using a computer, sometimes with no more than one functioning finger (have you seen Stephen Hawking?).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for killing babies, I suggest co2dog take a look at child cancer (due to depleted uranium ammo) statistics in Iraq. Not to mention the thousands killed in both Iraq and Afeghanistan by "collateral damage". You can't be "pro-life" and "pro-war" at the same time.
Oh, and don't give me that BS that these wars are to defend America, they are wars of aggression. Period. You want to fight a bunch of terrorists you use the police, the FBI, the CIA, not armies.