|
Author
|
Topic: Evidence based smear campaigns
|
Larni
Member (Idle past 186 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
Message 16 of 49 (558937)
05-05-2010 3:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 12 by Phage0070
05-05-2010 3:28 PM
|
|
But the article does say that this effect does function more or less with right wingers. Lefties won't change their conclusions and liberals are very evidence based in their thinking. Maybe that's where we get the term 'right wing nut jobs' from: an intuitive sense that the conclusions of the very right wing are indeed difficult for normal people to understand?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by Phage0070, posted 05-05-2010 3:28 PM | | Phage0070 has not replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 17 of 49 (558941)
05-05-2010 4:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by Larni
05-05-2010 3:36 PM
|
|
But the article does say that this effect does function more or less with right wingers. The backfire effect functioned on Conservatives more in the question regarding WMD possession. A stubbornness from the left did occur in a question about Stem Cell bans but not backfire. However the article's conclusion, and the paper's conclusion both indicate this is not necessarily a left vs right phenomenon. It's just that smears work well because people either ignore corrections or corrections serve to entrench them even further.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by Larni, posted 05-05-2010 3:36 PM | | Larni has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 18 by Phage0070, posted 05-05-2010 4:02 PM | | Modulous has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 29 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2010 3:34 AM | | Modulous has seen this message but not replied |
|
Phage0070
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 18 of 49 (558942)
05-05-2010 4:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 17 by Modulous
05-05-2010 4:00 PM
|
|
Modulous writes: However the article's conclusion, and the paper's conclusion both indicate this is not necessarily a left vs right phenomenon. It's just that smears work well because people either ignore corrections or corrections serve to entrench them even further. Hence Larni's determined efforts at a smear of his own.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 17 by Modulous, posted 05-05-2010 4:00 PM | | Modulous has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 19 by Larni, posted 05-05-2010 5:19 PM | | Phage0070 has replied |
|
Larni
Member (Idle past 186 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 19 of 49 (558954)
05-05-2010 5:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 18 by Phage0070
05-05-2010 4:02 PM
|
|
What tickles me is that the back fire effect only seems to work for right wingers...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 18 by Phage0070, posted 05-05-2010 4:02 PM | | Phage0070 has replied |
|
Phage0070
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 20 of 49 (558956)
05-05-2010 5:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by Larni
05-05-2010 5:19 PM
|
|
Funny, the study does not indicate that. You appear to just be pulling it out of your ass.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by Larni, posted 05-05-2010 5:19 PM | | Larni has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 30 by Larni, posted 05-06-2010 4:13 AM | | Phage0070 has not replied | | | Message 33 by Larni, posted 05-06-2010 4:45 AM | | Phage0070 has replied |
|
DC85
Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: 05-06-2003
|
|
|
Message 21 of 49 (558968)
05-05-2010 8:36 PM
|
|
|
I would like to know how this is defined and what factors are in play. My entire family is "conservative" and Christian and I grew to be quite "liberal" by American standards..... I held the opposite views at one time. I often back down from arguments when I'm proven wrong or at least lacking full knowledge.... Edited by DC85, : No reason given.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 22 by Coyote, posted 05-05-2010 8:56 PM | | DC85 has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 22 of 49 (558969)
05-05-2010 8:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 21 by DC85
05-05-2010 8:36 PM
|
|
And there are at least three different kinds of "conservative," although there is a lot of overlap. I see fiscal conservatives, small government conservatives, and "soc-cons" (social conservatives) who are generally religiously-motivated. These latter are often neither fiscal conservatives nor small government conservatives. I suspect the study in the OP did not differentiate.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by DC85, posted 05-05-2010 8:36 PM | | DC85 has not replied |
|
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 5015 days) Posts: 150 Joined: 04-23-2008
|
|
|
Message 23 of 49 (558971)
05-05-2010 9:23 PM
|
|
|
I find this stuff fascinating and depressing at the same time. It's not difficult to say "Perhaps I was wrong"..
|
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2432 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined: 01-05-2010
|
|
|
Message 24 of 49 (558972)
05-05-2010 10:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 13 by slevesque
05-05-2010 3:29 PM
|
|
Hey Slevesque.
Well, for my part I can't imagine my conservative friends to have such a behavior. I'm not sure you read me correctly. I said to think of your most liberal friend and then cite an example. Or maybe I'm not reading you correctly. 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 13 by slevesque, posted 05-05-2010 3:29 PM | | slevesque has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 27 by slevesque, posted 05-05-2010 11:41 PM | | Apothecus has seen this message but not replied |
|
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2445 days) Posts: 242 From: Dayton, OH Joined: 02-15-2010
|
|
|
Message 25 of 49 (558973)
05-05-2010 10:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by Larni
05-05-2010 5:19 PM
|
|
Larni writes: What tickles me is that the back fire effect only seems to work for right wingers... You might want to ask Dan Rather about that backfire effect.............
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by Larni, posted 05-05-2010 5:19 PM | | Larni has not replied |
|
Trae
Member (Idle past 4328 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: 06-18-2004
|
|
|
Message 26 of 49 (558974)
05-05-2010 10:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by Modulous
05-05-2010 3:10 PM
|
|
Re: The left wing
quote:
In the experiment, subjects read a mock news article attributed to either the New York Times or FoxNews.com...
If the 'correction' only appeared with the FoxNews label mightn't it be that liberals are more likely to just ignore FoxNews?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by Modulous, posted 05-05-2010 3:10 PM | | Modulous has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 28 by Modulous, posted 05-06-2010 1:51 AM | | Trae has replied |
|
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: 05-14-2009
|
|
|
Message 27 of 49 (558979)
05-05-2010 11:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by Apothecus
05-05-2010 10:01 PM
|
|
No you read right lol, I meant to say none of my conservative or liberal friends.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by Apothecus, posted 05-05-2010 10:01 PM | | Apothecus has seen this message but not replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 28 of 49 (558992)
05-06-2010 1:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 26 by Trae
05-05-2010 10:30 PM
|
|
Re: The left wing
If the 'correction' only appeared with the FoxNews label mightn't it be that liberals are more likely to just ignore FoxNews?
quote:
In the experiment, subjects read a mock news article attributed to either the New York Times or FoxNews.com...
If the 'correction' only appeared with the FoxNews label mightn't it be that liberals are more likely to just ignore FoxNews?
Again the paper mentions this effect:
quote:
As we briefly mention above, the news source manipulation used in the experiments in Study 2 did not have significant effects. These manipulations, which randomly attributed the articles to either Fox News or the New York Times, were included in order to determine if perceived source biases were driving the results observed in Study 1. However, Wald tests found that including news source indicator variables and the corresponding two- and three-way interactions with the correction treatment and participant ideology did not result in a statistically significant improvement in model fit for any of the experiments in Study 2 (details available upon request). How should we interpret these results, which differ with previous research on source effects in the persuasion literature? One possibility is that the news source manipulation, which consisted of changing the publication title listed at the top of the article (see Appendix), was simply too subtle. Perhaps a more visually striking reminder of the source of the article would have had a more significant effect. Similarly, the sources quoted within the news stories (e.g. President Bush, the Duelfer Report) may be the relevant ones for the purposes of comparison with previous findings. If we had manipulated the sources of the competing claims rather than the source of the news article, our results would likely have been different. Finally, it is possible that the lack of significant source effects is a more general property of two-sided message environmentsHartman and Weber (2009) find that the source framing effects observed in a one-sided message environment were no longer significant in a two-sided message environment.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by Trae, posted 05-05-2010 10:30 PM | | Trae has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 49 by Trae, posted 05-09-2010 4:38 AM | | Modulous has seen this message but not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 29 of 49 (558997)
05-06-2010 3:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 17 by Modulous
05-05-2010 4:00 PM
|
|
Is the Left the same ?
John Quiggin has two blog posts relating to this issue:
The Oregon Petition and looks for an equivalent from the left in the follow-up. Quiggin does make it clear that the asymmetry he sees is relatively recent, and I would agree. It's cultural, in the broad sense, rather than inherent. Certainly there seems to be a case that currently the right is more in lock-step, holding to indefensible positions as a group than the left is. (Found via Deltoid) Edited by PaulK, : Second URL vanished - was accessible via Deltoid link so no substantive change
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 17 by Modulous, posted 05-05-2010 4:00 PM | | Modulous has seen this message but not replied |
|
Larni
Member (Idle past 186 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 30 of 49 (559002)
05-06-2010 4:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by Phage0070
05-05-2010 5:50 PM
|
|
Funny, the study does not indicate that. You appear to just be pulling it out of your ass.
Funny, the study does not indicate that. You appear to just be pulling it out of your ass. But for people who placed themselves ideologically to the right of center, the correction wasn’t just ineffective, it actively backfired: conservatives who received a correction telling them that Iraq did not have WMD were more likely to believe that Iraq had WMD than people who were given no correction at all. Where you might have expected people simply to dismiss a correction that was incongruous with their pre-existing view, or regard it as having no credibility, it seems that in fact, such information actively reinforced their false beliefs. Seems it does say that.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by Phage0070, posted 05-05-2010 5:50 PM | | Phage0070 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 31 by Modulous, posted 05-06-2010 4:39 AM | | Larni has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2