there are some who still wouldn't believe it. I have been researching cognitive motivation for grad school, and have seen a study where the focus was on whether highly partisan people, if provided correct information (in this case the fact that there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda), would put aside their previous misperceptions and accept the new information, or if they would refuse the new information and retain the misperceptions. The authors of the study even used a clip of bush himself denying any connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Guess what happened: They still wouldn't believe it. Most often, they would simply refuse to acknowledge the new information. They would rationalize and justify everything. "He knows things he can't say," and even took that clip of bush to mean the exact opposite.
I see the same thing happening here with the health care debate. It's so frustrating. The Sycophant All-Stars are doing exactly what the good bushies did. They are now part of the problem.
My ignore list has grown by leaps and bounds. These people offer no constructive critiques and it is impossible to reason with them. I've wasted too much energy on their silliness.
Edit to add: Here is some info from a different study (PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll,
Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War), that tested three misperceptions, Saddam's link to al Qaeda, whether WMD had been found, and world opinion for support for the invasion of Iraq.
Republicans are also more likely than Democrats or independents to have misperceptions. However, when the analysis controls for support for the President, this party difference largely disappears. For example, among Bush supporters, Republicans, Democrats and independents were similarly likely to believe that the US has found clear evidence that Saddam Hussein was working closely with al-Qaeda (pro-Bush Republicans 68%, pro-Bush Democrats 77%, pro-Bush independents 67%). On whether the US has found evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the same pattern among Bush supporters was present (31% of pro-Bush Republicans believing such evidence has been found, 29% of pro-Bush Democrats believing this, and 29% of pro-Bush independents believing this). The same pattern appeared in all cases tested. Thus, having misperceptions is much more a function of being a Bush supporter than party preference.
It is tempting to assume that political bias can explain variations in misperceptions and can account for variations in those who get their news from various news sources. However, this idea is contradicted by the data on several fronts.
Supporters of a Democratic nominee also have significant misperceptions. Almost a third—32%--did believe that the US has found clear evidence Saddam Hussein was working closely with al-Qaeda. If this misperception was simply a function of a political position, one would not find it held by such a large proportion of those who do not intend to vote for Bush.
Also, while Bush supporters are more likely than supporters of a Democratic nominee to have misperceptions, for both groups, respondents’ choices of a news source make a significant difference in how prevalent misperceptions are. For example, 78% of Bush supporters who watch Fox News thought the US has found evidence of a direct link to al-Qaeda, but only 50% of Bush supporters in the PBS and NPR audience thought this. On the other side, 48% of Democrat supporters who watch Fox News thought the US has found evidence of a direct link to al-Qaeda, but not one single respondent who is a Democrat supporter and relies on PBS and NPR for network news thought the US had found such evidence.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
