continued influence effect

"A radical environmentalist, a socialist, and an illegal alien walk into a bar. The bartender says: 'What you having, Mr. President?'"--Sam Aanestad, Republican candidate for Congress, warming up the crowd at a Tea Party Patriots debate

The ‘continued influence effect’ is short for ‘the continued influence of misinformation.’ The term refers to the way false claims enter memory and continue to influence beliefs even after they have been corrected. Unfortunately, many people do not understand how memory works. Worse, they have little interest in the science of memory. If a false claim fits with beliefs that more-or-less define a person's worldview and has a strong emotional component, they instinctively accept the false claim rather than investigate it as a critical thinker would. For example, a few people—whose motives we need not explore here—were able to manipulate the mass media to make a story out of the claims that Barak Obama was born in Kenya and is a Muslim. If these claims were true, Mr. Obama would not be eligible to be president of the United States. Actually, only the first claim--that he was born in Kenya--makes him ineligible. Despite the presentation of overwhelming evidence that President Barack Obama is a Christian and was born in Hawaii, many Americans continue to believe otherwise. On March 12, 2012, the results of a poll in Alabama and Mississippi found that among Republican voters about half still believe he is a Muslim. The importance that emotion and worldview have in affecting this erroneous belief is indicated by the fact that about 25% of those who think Obama is a Muslim also believe that interracial marriage should be illegal. (Obama's father was Kenyan, his mother was Irish.) One year ago, a national poll found that one-fourth of all Americans think President Obama was not born in the United States. Among Republicans and Tea Party supporters, 45% believe he was born in another country. It is very difficult to be fair and balanced in evaluating new information when one has a strong emotional attachment to beliefs that conflict with the new information.

Some people believed Vice-president Dick Cheney when he claimed: “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction; there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” The good news is that many people changed their minds when provided with good evidence contrary to what Cheney had claimed. Several years after Cheney made his false claim and the evidence for it remained near zero, the percentage of Americans who accepted the falsehood about Saddam and weapons of mass destruction dropped from 36 to 26 percent. Still, one out of four Americans believing something false is not something to be proud of.

It should be obvious that most of us are not critical of claims that fit well with our prejudices and emotion-laden beliefs. Still, you would think that we would give up believing something once the evidence shows that we’re wrong, especially since most of us are encouraged in childhood to be truthful and honest. The science indicates otherwise. See, for example, my previous post on the backfire effect. Even without the science, most of know from experience that some nuts are nearly impossible to crack. One of the more obvious examples is religion. Last year, a Gallup poll found that 3 in 10 Americans take the Bible to be the literal word of the god of Abraham. Another 49 percent say the Bible is inspired by a god but should not be taken literally. When you are taught something from childhood that is continually reinforced by one’s family and other communities, it is very difficult to be fair and balanced in evaluating evidence that conflicts with those teachings. On the other hand, in areas where emotion is less dominating, when people are faced with overwhelming evidence contrary to what they believe, they correct their errors. This is what happens in science again and again, unlike what has occurred with fundamentalist religious believers.

It has long been known that false information can influence memory. Recent studies have found that correcting false information often has little effect on changing beliefs. Discredited information continues to influence reasoning and understanding even after one has been corrected. The backfire and continued influence effects should be disheartening to those who think that the first step in arguing with those who base their beliefs on misinformation should be to get their opponents to see what the facts are. Correcting errors is pointless when dealing with people who attribute their own beliefs to principled, unprejudiced inquiry, while attributing the beliefs of those who disagree with them to bias and ulterior motives. But even if a person admits that those who disagree with him have integrity and are really seeking the truth, you are probably wasting your time providing data and facts that might change his mind if the claim you are trying to correct challenges his gut feelings and core beliefs.

Critical thinkers want errors corrected. At the very least, getting the facts right might prevent some faulty inferences and prevent one from behaving in ways that could prove harmful. Is there any hope that those who tend to stick to their beliefs--no matter what the evidence--can change? Yes, there’s some hope, but it is very slight. A study by Ullrich Ecker, Stephan Lewandowsky, and David Tang found giving subjects detailed information about the continued influence effect reduced the reliance on outdated information but did not eliminate it. They also found that reminding people that facts are not always properly checked before information is published in the media didn’t have much effect on reducing the continued influence of misinformation. Holly M. Johnson and Colleen M. Seifert have argued that providing a plausible causal alternative, rather than simply negating misinformation, mitigates the continued influence effect ( “Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences” ). They may be right for some beliefs, but I have not found that providing a causal alternative to astrologers, acupuncturists, homeopaths, parapsychologists, or defenders of applied kinesiology, for example, has had much effect on true believers. Political beliefs, religious beliefs, and conspiratorial beliefs seem impenetrable to facts that contradict them. Changes in these beliefs seem more likely to occur outside of direct confrontation with opponents.

One obviously important area where reliance on misinformation can be harmful is in the courtroom. Jurors’ reasoning is influenced by misinformation. Just warning them that something they’ve been presented with is false won’t necessarily prevent the false information from affecting their thinking. We like to think that such warnings would prevent our memories from being distorted, but the way memory ordinarily works is that it often instinctively draws on misinformation—even misinformation that we know is wrong because we’ve had it corrected. In addition to the Ecker et al. study and the Johnson and Seifert study, another important study has found evidence for the continued influence of corrected misinformation: Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler's “When Corrections Fail: The persistence of political misperceptions.”

So, is there anything that might change the minds of those who believe Obama is a Muslim born outside of the United States or that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction before George W. Bush ordered an invasion of Iraq? I would argue that if a person is driven by emotions, especially fear, you probably have little chance of changing his mind. If, however, a person is not driven by emotion and is flexible and open to new information, you have a good chance of changing that person’s mind by providing accurate information backed up with reliable sources. What percentage of so-called birthers are not driven by emotion and are comfortable with changing their minds as new information becomes available? Figure that out and you will know the probable odds of your success at persuading a birther to change his mind. I’d say your odds of success are about the same as those of getting someone who considers “abortion the ultimate child abuse” to engage in a rational discussion of the moral and legal issues regarding abortion.

Finally, further complicating matters are the suggestions that some people's personalities and brains are structured in ways that make them nearly impenetrable to data that conflicts with what in their hearts they know to be true. Their belief armor, perhaps, makes them impervious to change unless one appeals directly to their emotions and gut feelings without challenging the core beliefs that define who they are. Data runs off the backs of some people who are moved to tears by an emotional story that is merely anecdotal. Authoritarian personalities who know what they know is true are driven by fear of "liberals" who are conspiring to take away their freedom and establish an atheistic and socialist state and are not going to be too open minded when it comes to things like Obama's citizenship or abortion issues. The belief armor is strengthened by the tendency of many people to seek out sources of misinformation, perhaps deluding themselves into thinking that they are truth seekers. But, hey, Stephen Colbert figured this out a long time ago.

priming effect

The priming effect is a biasing effect on judgment or action by the cognitive meaning or emotive aura of memories, words, images, or symbols. Most of us have had an experience where we misheard some words in a song, a prayer, or a pledge and then continued to mishear the same words--sometimes for years--until somebody corrects us. We might call such cases examples of self-priming. (This kind of mishearing is called a mondegreen.) Another example of priming comes from backmasking. What at first sounds like gibberish becomes a clear message after somebody tells you what to listen for. Another example of priming comes from allegedly outraged parents and a talking doll: "Little Mommy Real Loving Baby Cuddle and Coo" doll from Fisher-Price. Some folks swear the doll mumbles "Satan is king" and "Islam is the light." Some might even hear "Palin is a terrorist who is perpetrating voter fraud"  once they're told that's what the doll is saying.

A person's prejudices, preoccupations, or vital interests might prime one to mishear or misread words. For example, an evolutionary biologist might misread a headline in a magazine article as saying that Charles Darwin committed fraud when the headline actually says that Charles Dawson (of Piltdown infamy) was the miscreant. Because the headline would strike the scientist as false, however, a quick review would probably correct the misreading. In most cases of priming, however, we are unaware of the influence. Many studies have demonstrated that we are influenced in our judgments and actions both by words themselves and by the order in which words, images, or statements are presented to us or which present themselves to us naturally.

Just hearing someone utter the word 'beautiful' before you view a sunset or a work of art may influence both your judgment and the speed with which you make the judgment. Psi researcher Daryl Bem tested for precognition by modifying a standard test of priming. Instead of showing subjects a word like 'ugly' or 'beautiful' before they viewed a picture of something like a sunset or a sex act and then testing how long it takes to respond either favorably or unfavorably to the picture, Bem showed the picture first, measured response time, and then showed the "priming word."

Sometimes we see or hear things without being conscious of seeing or hearing them. Evidence of unconscious perception may become clear at a later time. For example, a person may go many years without understanding why seeing a road sign with the words “hidden meadow” in it produces sexual arousal. Then, one day she returns to a place she hadn’t been in many years. She remembers that this was where she met her first lover and the place is called Hidden Meadow.

The priming effect is evident in the unconscious influence of beliefs on actions, such as the hearing of intelligible speech by bird owners and devotees of EVP, and the ideomotor effect on dowsers, Ouija board users, table tilters in séances, assistants in facilitated communication, subjects of hypnotic suggestion, and both parties in applied kinesiology.

Priming has been shown to be powerful enough to create false memories. Priming is especially problematic in hypnotherapy. Many hypnotherapists seem unaware that they are priming their patients. The dangers of this practice are stated by Martin Orne: "The cues as to what is expected may be unwittingly communicated before or during the hypnotic procedure, either by the hypnotist or by someone else, for example, a previous subject, a story, a movie, a stage show, etc. Further, the nature of these cues may be quite obscure to the hypnotist, to the subject, and even to the trained observer."

The priming effect is also evident in the unconscious influence of symbols and metaphors, as Sigmund Freud noted long ago. There is a reason that presidents pose for photos while sitting at a desk with a library of books in the background guarded by a hanging American flag and fronted by a family photo. A recent study found that a person will usually vote more politically conservative if he or she votes or completes a survey near or in a church location. "These same voters are also more negative toward non-Christians, as compared to people who vote or answer polls near government or non-Christian buildings. Also:

A study of voting patterns in precincts of Arizona in 2000 showed that the support for propositions to increase the funding of schools was significantly greater when the polling station was in a school than when it was in a nearby location. A separate experiment showed that exposing people to images of classrooms and school lockers also increased the tendency of participants to support a school initiative. The effect of the images was larger than the difference between parents and other voters! (Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, p. 55, Macmillan, Kindle Edition.)

It's easy to understand why a person won't pick up a wallet with a red circle drawn around it or how photo cameras on traffic signals would have an effect on the number of drivers who go through red lights, but it is not so obvious why putting a poster of two eyes looking down at you above an "honesty box" for dropping money to cover the cost of tea or coffee taken would increase the amount of money collected in the same office over the same length of time when there was no poster.

Pollsters know, or should know, that they will get different results from a random sample of adults who are asked if they support affirmative action or preferential treatment of underrepresented groups. Differences in opinion will also occur if the question is put negatively rather than positively. Apparently, opposing something is not understood as the direct opposite of supporting something.

Pollsters know, or should know, that how people answer a question is affected by what question or questions were asked previously. That is why professional pollsters should and usually do have their pollsters ask the same questions to members of the sample, but ask them in different orders to different segments of those polled.

affect bias

The affect bias refers to our tendency to make judgments based on feelings of liking or disliking with little input from deliberative reasoning.

Our judgment regarding the costs and benefits of items is often significantly influenced by a feeling evoked by pictures or words not directly relevant to the actual cost or benefit. For some, the good or bad feeling they have just prior to making a decision is a bias that influences that decision and renders it irrational. For example, many people are willing to pay more for airline travel insurance that covers death from just terrorist acts than they would pay for insurance that covers death from all possible causes (Gardner 2008: p. 73). The expression "terrorist acts" has strong negative emotive content, which apparently leads many people to an irrational willingness to pay more for less coverage.

 "The psychologist Paul Slovic has proposed an affect heuristic in which people let their likes and dislikes determine their beliefs about the world" (Kahneman 2011: p. 103). 

The affect bias hinders our ability to see the potential negative consequences of our own position and the potential positive consequences of an opponent's position.

Paul Slovic has found that people underestimate the lethality of all diseases except cancer, which is overestimated (Gardner: p. 72). This misperception may be due in part to the strong negative emotive content that the word 'cancer' carries, compared to the emotive meaning of less-charged words like 'diabetes' and 'asthma.'

The affect bias is at work in attracting people to detoxify their bodies with colonic irrigations and other unnecessary "cleansings" of organs that do not need cleansing. The idea of poison arouses fear and leads many people to an emotionally based decision to undergo pointless detoxification treatments. Similar tactics are used in the advertising of “feminine hygiene” products to remove “offensive odors” from “down there.”

Advertisers bank on affect bias when they pay top dollar to beautiful celebrities to hawk their products. When Michael Jackson was young and famous as a singer and dancer he was in demand as a branding icon. I once overheard a young man say to a clerk: "Give me a Michael" instead of "Give me a Pepsi." Jackson was once a spokesman for Pepsi-Cola.

Pollsters should understand that affect bias will affect the responses they receive. They should know that they will get different results depending on whether they ask people if they favor preferential treatment of women and minorities (rather than affirmative action) or if they are against abortion (rather than for freedom of choice).

Anyone who has taken a speech class knows that the best way to get an audience on your side—besides packing the room with family and friends—is to tell a joke or a funny story. Laughing usually makes people feel good. An audience that feels good is more likely to be receptive to your message than one that is in a bad mood. The best sales people are often the ones who know how to get a customer to relax and feel good (Levine 2003).

Clever speakers can manipulate the unwary with words that arouse positive or negative feelings. On one side are what Jamie Whyte calls hurrah words: peace, love, victory, happiness, security, safety, protect, innocent, freedom, liberty, justice, democracy, courage, confidence, and tax relief. If you’re trying to arouse sympathy to your viewpoint, no matter how obnoxious, deceptive, or pernicious that viewpoint might be, sprinkle your speech with plenty of hurrah words. On the other side are the boo words. If you’re trying to arouse opposition to others be sure to include several boo words in your speech: hate freedom, hate liberty, terrorize, attack, barbarity, murdered, threat, cowards, evil, kill, extremists, radical, tyranny, dictator, arrogant, woo-woo, pseudoscience, and liberal. Boo words arouse sympathy by provoking contempt. Of course, different audiences respond differently to the same words. The word socialist, for example, may arouse either positive or negative feelings, depending on the audience. Lately, it seems that many Republicans use the word 'government' as a boo word. Both Republicans and Democrats seem to be using 'create jobs' as a hurrah expression. The expression as used in political debates has a definite positive aura but seems to have little cognitive meaning.

Political columnist David Brooks captured the power of the affect bias when he wrote: "Most people just want somebody who can articulate their hatreds, and [Republican presidential candidate Newt] Gingrich is demagogically happy to play the role." Gingrich has been providing this service for many years.

When Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, wanted to arouse sympathy for the Republican Party prior to the 2006 November elections he created a new political enemy: “San Francisco left-wing activists.” If you haven’t heard of these folks, they are the ones who have “San Francisco left-wing values.” These are people with liberal values who run with the elite media. They want to raise taxes and either “cut and run” or “run and hide” from Iraq. They represent “the failed policies of higher taxes, more regulation and bloated bureaucratic structures of the past.” They support policies of appeasement and defeatism. According to Mr. Gingrich, “If you think you have too much money in your family budget, then you have a party to vote for, because Democrats will gladly raise your taxes shifting your money from your family to Washington bureaucrats.” And, “if you want to go back to high taxes, high interest rates, high inflation, slower economic growth, more unemployment, fewer savings, shorter vacations and more bureaucracy, then you have a party in the Democrats.” Shorter vacations? Yes, according to Mr. Gingrich, the Democrats can even shorten your vacation if elected. That’s how evil and powerful those San Francisco liberal, radical, left-wing Democrats are. (Carroll 2011: Kindle Locations 932-941).

Finally, music is one of the great mood changers. Changing someone's mood is often the quickest way to get them to agree to an idea they might otherwise find boring or unpleasant. If I am in a grouchy mood and you want to bias me in the direction of some plan of action, playing Mark Knopfler's "Wild Theme" from Local Hero will usually do the trick. And those of us with some life experience have known a few Proustian moments involving agreeable odors or tastes that not only triggered pleasant memories and feelings but also made us susceptible to accepting an irrational proposition or two.

references

Carroll, Robert. 2011. Unnatural Acts: Critical Thinking, Skepticism, and Science Exposed!  James Randi Educational Foundation. Kindle Edition.

Gardner, Daniel. 2008. The Science of Fear: Why We Fear the Things We Shouldn't--and Put Ourselves in Greater Danger. Dutton.

Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Macmillan.

Whyte, Jamie. 2004. Crimes Against Logic - Exposing the Bogus Arguments of Politicians, Priests, Journalists, and Other Serial Offenders.