Literature DB >> 23620547

Political extremism is supported by an illusion of understanding.

Philip M Fernbach1, Todd Rogers, Craig R Fox, Steven A Sloman.   

Abstract

People often hold extreme political attitudes about complex policies. We hypothesized that people typically know less about such policies than they think they do (the illusion of explanatory depth) and that polarized attitudes are enabled by simplistic causal models. Asking people to explain policies in detail both undermined the illusion of explanatory depth and led to attitudes that were more moderate (Experiments 1 and 2). Although these effects occurred when people were asked to generate a mechanistic explanation, they did not occur when people were instead asked to enumerate reasons for their policy preferences (Experiment 2). Finally, generating mechanistic explanations reduced donations to relevant political advocacy groups (Experiment 3). The evidence suggests that people's mistaken sense that they understand the causal processes underlying policies contributes to political polarization.

Entities:  

Keywords:  attitudes; causal models; causality; decision making; explanation; extremism; illusion of explanatory depth; judgment; mechanism; moderation; polarization; policymaking; political psychology; public policy

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23620547     DOI: 10.1177/0956797612464058

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Sci        ISSN: 0956-7976


  16 in total

1.  Advocating for vaccination in a climate of science denial.

Authors:  Cornelia Betsch
Journal:  Nat Microbiol       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 17.745

Review 2.  Bias and ignorance in demographic perception.

Authors:  D Landy; B Guay; T Marghetis
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-10

3.  Active engagement in a web-based tutorial to prevent obesity grounded in Fuzzy-Trace Theory predicts higher knowledge and gist comprehension.

Authors:  Priscila G Brust-Renck; Valerie F Reyna; Evan A Wilhelms; Christopher R Wolfe; Colin L Widmer; Elizabeth M Cedillos-Whynott; A Kate Morant
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2017-08

4.  The Necessity to Recognize Processes of Radicalization from a Socio-cultural Perspective.

Authors:  Ayşenur Benevento
Journal:  Integr Psychol Behav Sci       Date:  2021-04-26

5.  People mistake the internet's knowledge for their own.

Authors:  Adrian F Ward
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-10-26       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 6.  Interventions to reduce partisan animosity.

Authors:  Rachel Hartman; Will Blakey; Jake Womick; Chris Bail; Eli J Finkel; Hahrie Han; John Sarrouf; Juliana Schroeder; Paschal Sheeran; Jay J Van Bavel; Robb Willer; Kurt Gray
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2022-09-19

7.  Causal reasoning without mechanism.

Authors:  Selma Dündar-Coecke; Gideon Goldin; Steven A Sloman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-05-13       Impact factor: 3.752

8.  The illusion of argument justification.

Authors:  Matthew Fisher; Frank C Keil
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2013-03-18

9.  Intolerance of uncertainty modulates brain-to-brain synchrony during politically polarized perception.

Authors:  Jeroen M van Baar; David J Halpern; Oriel FeldmanHall
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Understanding, explaining, and utilizing medical artificial intelligence.

Authors:  Romain Cadario; Chiara Longoni; Carey K Morewedge
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2021-06-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.