The research on belief vs fact that was described in a recent news
release from University of Buffalo (New York, USA) might be useful, though it
doesn't deal specifically with EBM -- they used a political topic to explore
"motivated reasoning" -- but I feel this key statement from the news release
applies equally well to the application of EBM:
Full text of the news release, with URL to the original, appears
below.
A belief in link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 is a case in
point;
false beliefs stirred by current health care debate may be
another
Release date: Friday, August 21, 2009
Contact: Patricia
Donovan,
[log in to unmask]Phone: 716-645-4602
Fax:
716-645-3765
BUFFALO, N.Y. -- In a study published in the most recent
issue of the
journal Sociological Inquiry, sociologists from four major
research
institutions focus on one of the most curious aspects of the
2004
presidential election: the strength and resilience of the belief
among
many Americans that Saddam Hussein was linked to the terrorist
attacks
of 9/11.
Although this belief influenced the 2004 election,
they claim it did
not result from pro-Bush propaganda, but from an urgent
need by many
Americans to seek justification for a war already in
progress.
The findings may illuminate reasons why some people form false
beliefs
about the pros and cons of health-care reform or regarding
President
Obama's citizenship, for example.
The study,
"There Must Be a Reason: Osama, Saddam and Inferred
Justification" calls such
unsubstantiated beliefs "a serious challenge
to democratic theory and
practice" and considers how and why it was
maintained by so many voters for
so long in the absence of supporting
evidence.
Co-author Steven
Hoffman, Ph.D., visiting assistant professor of
sociology at the University
at Buffalo, says, "Our data shows
substantial support for a cognitive theory
known as 'motivated
reasoning,' which suggests that rather than search
rationally for
information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular
belief,
people actually seek out information that confirms what they
already
believe.
"In fact," he says, "for the most part people
completely ignore
contrary information.
"The study demonstrates
voters' ability to develop elaborate
rationalizations based on faulty
information," he explains.
While numerous scholars have blamed a campaign
of false information and
innuendo from the Bush administration, this study
argues that the
primary cause of misperception in the 9/11-Saddam Hussein
case was not
the presence or absence of accurate data but a respondent's
desire to
believe in particular kinds of information.
"The argument
here is that people get deeply attached to their
beliefs," Hoffman
says.
"We form emotional attachments that get wrapped up in our
personal
identity and sense of morality, irrespective of the facts of
the
matter. The problem is that this notion of 'motivated reasoning'
has
only been supported with experimental results in artificial
settings.
We decided it was time to see if it held up when you talk to
actual
voters in their homes, workplaces, restaurants, offices and
other
deliberative settings."
The survey and interview-based study was
conducted by Hoffman, Monica
Prasad, Ph.D., assistant professor of sociology
at Northwestern
University; Northwestern graduate students Kieren Bezila and
Kate
Kindleberger; Andrew Perrin, Ph.D., associate professor of
sociology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; and UNC graduate
students
Kim Manturuk, Andrew R. Payton and Ashleigh Smith Powers (now
an
assistant professor of political science and psychology at
Millsaps
College).
The study addresses what it refers to as a
"serious challenge to
democratic theory and practice that results when
citizens with
incorrect information cannot form appropriate preferences or
evaluate
the preferences of others."
One of the most curious
"false beliefs" of the 2004 presidential
election, they say, was a strong and
resilient belief among many
Americans that Saddam Hussein was linked to the
terrorist attacks of
Sept. 11, 2001.
Hoffman says that over the
course of the 2004 presidential campaign,
several polls showed that
majorities of respondents believed that
Saddam Hussein was either partly or
largely responsible for the 9/11
attacks, a percentage that declined very
slowly, dipping below 50
percent only in late 2003.
"This
misperception that Hussein was responsible for the Twin Tower
terrorist
attacks was very persistent, despite all the evidence
suggesting that no link
existed," Hoffman says.
The study team employed a technique called
"challenge interviews" on a
sample of voters who reported believing in a link
between Saddam and
9/11. The researchers presented the available evidence of
the link,
along with the evidence that there was no link, and then
pushed
respondents to justify their opinion on the matter. For all but
one
respondent, the overwhelming evidence that there was no link left
no
impact on their arguments in support of the link.
One unexpected
pattern that emerged from the different justifications
that subjects offered
for continuing to believe in the validity of the
link was that it helped
citizens make sense of the Bush
Administration's decision to go to war
against Iraq.
"We refer to this as 'inferred justification,'" says
Hoffman "because
for these voters, the sheer fact that we were engaged in war
led to a
post-hoc search for a justification for that war.
"People
were basically making up justifications for the fact that we
were at war," he
says.
"One of the things that is really interesting about this, from
both the
perspective of voting patterns but also for democratic theory
more
generally, Hoffman says, "is that we did not find that people
were
being duped by a campaign of innuendo so much as they were
actively
constructing links and justifications that did not exist.
"They wanted to believe in the link," he says, "because it helped
them
make sense of a current reality. So voters' ability to
develop
elaborate rationalizations based on faulty information, whether
we
think that is good or bad for democratic practice, does at
least
demonstrate an impressive form of creativity."
The University at
Buffalo is a premier research-intensive public
university, a flagship
institution in the State University of New York
system and its largest and
most comprehensive campus. UB's more than
28,000 students pursue their
academic interests through more than 300
undergraduate, graduate and
professional degree programs. Founded in
1846, the University at Buffalo is a
member of the Association of
American Universities.
See this
article online at:
http://www.buffalo.edu/news/10364
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For
more information please see the UB News Services
web site at
http://www.buffalo.edu/news
