Summary: A innovative research challenges the notion that knowledge of the truth just adâncies social groups. When Americans were given accurate, factual information about gun control and encouraged to do so, they retained the details and perhaps revised their opinions, according to researchers.
Members shifted toward restraint without developing more animosity toward those with opposing viewpoints in order to avoid becoming more divided. These findings point to the effectiveness of scientific information in reducing polarization and fostering healthier political dialogue.
Important Information
- Even a month after the review, members still retained accurate information and displayed less divided viewpoints.
- Reduced Polarization: Contact to anti-attitudinal facts resulted in restraint rather than extremism or increased hostility.
- Practical Insight: The research supports using reliable, objective data as a means of bridging political divides.
Origin: Jerusalem’s Hebrew University
A new research co-led by MIT , Dr. Eran Amsalem from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Dr. Michael Nicholas Stagnaro of the same school, challenges outdated notions about the importance of data in political discourse. It shows that scientific knowledge can really help bridge political divides rather than exacerbate them.
The study, which was published in Nature Communications, tested a widely accepted theory in social science, which was that exposure to knowledge makes people become more socially inspired.
According to this concept, people typically reject facts that disagree with their beliefs while accepting those that support them, creating a more polarization. The results of this new study, however, are entirely unique.
A random study with a representative example of more than 1, 000 Americans on the controversial subject of gun control was conducted.
Participants were given a large number of reliable statistics, some of which supported their own opinions and others who challenged them, and were only given small incentives to read the information.
Amazingly, participants read it, learned it, and kept it, not to mention the counter-attitudinal knowledge. Their knowledge persisted even a month after, and so did the attitudes that had changed.
People shifted toward more moderate opinions rather than becoming more serious. Interestingly, this depression occurred without correspondingly provoking more hostility toward those who disagree with their views, which suggests that knowledge had an impact on policy decisions without provoking social animosity.
According to Dr. Amsalem, a mature teacher in the Hebrew University’s Department of Communication and Journalism, “our research demonstrates that people are more open-minded than we often assume.”
When given high-quality, balanced information and a reason to learn them, people don’t just stick to their old beliefs; they make changes.
This conveys a promising information: scientific understanding can be a potent force of dissention in the face of polarization across a range of controversial issues.
Why Does This Matter Right Today?
This study comes at a critical moment. Understanding how to develop meaningful speech is more crucial than ever as political fragmentation grows in democracies around the world.
Misinformation, emotionally charged speech, and media echo chambers frequently rule the public circle, leaving little room for nuance or teaching.
The notion that people can change their minds when given precise, healthy information is both surprising and profoundly encouraging in this context.
The study challenges the development of skepticism about people’s ability to effectively transcend intellectual boundaries. It provides proof that depression is a real possibility rather than just a philosophical best.
The findings highlight a course of action: societies may yet regain the middle ground by making reliable, sensible information available and encouraging engagement with it in an age where extremism and animosity spread quickly and trust in institutions is unstable.
Implications for Public and Policy, respectively
The study provides a compelling counterpoint to the growing abyss of polarized discourse by highlighting the possibility that accurate, balanced information can cause real changes in beliefs.
It recommends that civic education, public policy, and media practices give attention to both the accuracy and presentation of information.
In the end, this study could influence novel approaches to journalism, educational curricula, and even social media platform design, making for healthier, more productive conversations in democratic societies.
About this news from a study on political psychology
Author: Yarden Mills
Source: Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Contact: Yarden Mills – Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News
Open access to original research
By Eran Amsalem and others,” Factors can help to reduce attitude polarization..” Nature Communications
Abstract
Factors can help to reduce attitude polarization.
It is frequently claimed that factual understanding of a political issue causes polarization in attitudes as a result of politically motivated reasoning.
According to this theory, people ignore counter-attitudinal facts and concentrate on pro-attitudinal facts, reject counter-attitudinal facts when confronted with them, and use pro-attitudinal facts to counterargue, all of which increase their polarization.
The general consensus is that more knowledgeable partisans are frequently more polarized in favor of this theory. However, these data only have a correlational quality.
Here, we directly examine the impact of increasing issue-relevant knowledge on attitude polarization.
We specifically randomize whether and N = 1, 011 participants receive a sizable number of both positive and negative attitudinal facts about a contentious political issue, gun control, and give them a small incentive to learn this information.
We find proof that people are willing to learn policy-relevant facts both for and against their initial attitudes, and that this increased factual knowledge leads to a shift toward more moderate policy attitudes, a change that remains discernible after one month.
Our findings suggest that directionally motivated reasoning may have a greater impact on how political information is processed than previously thought.
