Any of ya'll participate in this study?

[TexasTiger 13,017]

 

People Believe a 'Fact'

That Fits Their Views

Even if It's Clearly False

February 4, 2005; Page B1

Funny thing, memory. With the second anniversary next month of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, it's only natural that supporters as well as opponents of the war will be reliving the many searing moments of those first weeks of battle.

The rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch. U.S. troops firing at a van approaching a Baghdad checkpoint and killing seven women and children. A suicide bomber nearing a Najaf checkpoint and blowing up U.S. soldiers. The execution of coalition POWs by Iraqis. The civilian uprising in Basra against Saddam's Baathist party.

If you remember it well, then we have grist for another verse for Lerner and Loewe ("We met at nine," "We met at eight," "I was on time," "No, you were late." "Ah yes, I remember it well!"). The first three events occurred. The second two were products of the fog of war: After being reported by the media, both were quickly retracted by coalition authorities as erroneous.

Yet retracting a report isn't the same as erasing it from people's memories. According to an international study to be published next month, Americans tend to believe that the last two events occurred -- even when they recall the retraction or correction. In contrast, Germans and Australians who recall the retraction discount the misinformation. It isn't that Germans and Australians are smarter. Instead, it's further evidence that what we remember depends on what we believe.

"People build mental models," explains Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychology professor at the University of Western Australia, Crawley, who led the study that will be published in Psychological Science. "By the time they receive a retraction, the original misinformation has already become an integral part of that mental model, or world view, and disregarding it would leave the world view a shambles." Therefore, he and his colleagues conclude in their paper, "People continue to rely on misinformation even if they demonstrably remember and understand a subsequent retraction."

For the study, the scientists showed more than 860 people in Australia, Germany and the U.S. a list of events -- some true (the first three examples above), some reported but retracted (the second two), some completely invented ("Iraqi troops poisoned a water supply before withdrawing from Baghdad"). Each person indicated whether or not he or she had heard of the event and rated its likelihood of being true. People were pretty good at weeding out the invented reports. Then, for each report they said they had heard, they noted whether it had subsequently been retracted.

If the report had been retracted, surely people would no longer regard it as true, would they? Here is where memory parts ways with reason. The Germans and Australians responded as you'd expect. The better they recalled that a claim had been taken back, the less true they judged that claim. They did not believe in events they knew had been erroneously reported.

But for the Americans in the study, the simple act of remembering that they had once heard something was enough to make them regard it as true, retraction be damned. Even many of those who remembered a retraction still rated the original claim as true.

That comes as no surprise to memory researchers. Time and again, lab studies show that people have an astonishing propensity to recall things that never happened. If you read a list of words such as pillow, bed and pajamas, and are later asked whether another word was there, you may well "remember" related words that were never presented. "Sleep" was on the list, wasn't it?

In this case, people's mental model is "words about sleep." In the case of memories about Iraq, people's mental model is why the U.S. invaded. The Germans and Australians in this study were skeptical of the official justification, namely, to find weapons of mass destruction. The Americans were more credulous on that point. How suspicious or credulous people were strongly affected whether they judged a retracted claim to be true or not.

"People who were not suspicious of the motives behind the war continued to rely on misinformation," Prof. Lewandowsky said, "believing in things they know to have been retracted." They held fast to what they had originally heard "because it fits with their mental model," which people seek to retain "whatever it takes."

In contrast, those who were suspicious of the WMD justification believed the retractions. The reason is probably that they weren't sold on the original, erroneous reports -- all of which cast the U.S. in a good light and Iraqi forces in a bad one. These people "are more willing to discard elements of a mental model that turn out to be wrong," says Prof. Lewandowsky.

The news media would do well to keep in mind that once we report something, some people will always believe it even if we try to stuff the genie back in the bottle. For instance, six months after the invasion, one-third of Americans believed WMDs had been found, even though every such tentative claim was discomfirmed. The findings also offer Machiavellian possibilities for politicians. They can make a false claim that helps their cause, contritely retract it -- and rest assured that some people will nevertheless keep thinking of it as true.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB...5045356,00.html

[AURaptor 1,126]

In the case of memories about Iraq, people's mental model is why the U.S. invaded. The Germans and Australians in this study were skeptical of the official justification, namely, to find weapons of mass destruction. The Americans were more credulous on that point. How suspicious or credulous people were strongly affected whether they judged a retracted claim to be true or not.

There's nothing to this what so ever. A simple evaluation of the facts can easily remedy this entire issue. Iraq HAD violated numerous U.N. resolutions. There is no getting around this. What we have here is nothing but another attempt by the appeasers of the world to justify their support for terrorism over the United States.

If anything, this is an example of how some people continue to project their biasese against America, even in the light of something so horrific as Saddam .

[Tigermike 3,053]

People Believe a 'Fact'

That Fits Their Views

Even if It's Clearly False

Obviously the Democrats fit into that very well. They are now all completely convinced that there was never a compelling reason to defeat Sodom Hussein and that the people of Iraq are no better off since he was pushed out of power.

[bigsixfive 328]

People Believe a 'Fact'

That Fits Their Views

Even if It's Clearly False

Obviously the Democrats fit into that very well. They are now all completely convinced that there was never a compelling reason to defeat Sodom Hussein and that the people of Iraq are no better off since he was pushed out of power.

144699[/snapback]

If you lie to yourself enough times, eventually you presume the lie to be a fact.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Listen, all one has to do to show how hypocritical is the Left is to merely go back and read for themselves and see what the Dems were saying about Saddam in their OWN WORDS! From Bill and Hillary, to Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and yes, even John Kerry... each and every one of them agreed that Saddam and his WMD programs were at threat that needed to be dealt with, and if need be, by FORCE.

There really could not be any more open/shut issue than this one. The ONLY thing different here is that George Bush is President, and a Democrat isn't.

I'm continuiously amazed at how stubbornly partisan folks are being about this topic, well beyond the realm of rationality.

There is some truth found in that 'study',but the conclusions are exactly 180 degrees wrong.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

The rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch. U.S. troops firing at a van approaching a Baghdad checkpoint and killing seven women and children. A suicide bomber nearing a Najaf checkpoint and blowing up U.S. soldiers. The execution of coalition POWs by Iraqis. The civilian uprising in Basra against Saddam's Baathist party.

...

The first three events occurred. The second two were products of the fog of war: After being reported by the media, both were quickly retracted by coalition authorities as erroneous.

Yet retracting a report isn't the same as erasing it from people's memories. According to an international study to be published next month, Americans tend to believe that the last two events occurred -- even when they recall the retraction or correction. In contrast, Germans and Australians who recall the retraction discount the misinformation. It isn't that Germans and Australians are smarter. Instead, it's further evidence that what we remember depends on what we believe.

...

The news media would do well to keep in mind that once we report something, some people will always believe it even if we try to stuff the genie back in the bottle. For instance, six months after the invasion, one-third of Americans believed WMDs had been found, even though every such tentative claim was discomfirmed.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB...5045356,00.html

You guys are arguing old positions instead of responding to the article. Don't agree with the conclusions? Fine. What is your explanation for why Americans in the study continued to believe what wasn't true, even when they remembered the retractions?

[Auburn85 432]

Maybe it's tough to respond because we don't know very much about the people in the study.

We don't know if there living under a rock, or getting paid by the Bush administration to BELIEVE .

860 people really does speak voulumes for the 250 million people living in this country.

Some people still believe Elvis is still alive, although he has a grave with his name on it.

And just how careful and responsible has the media been of late? Memogate is a fine example.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Maybe it's tough to respond because we don't know very much about the people in the study.

...

Some people still believe Elvis is still alive, although he has a grave with his name on it.

And just how careful and responsible has the media been of late? Memogate is a fine example.

144750[/snapback]

You have a great capacity for random, lame excuses. Memogate? A major failing at least for which there was an investigation and some accountability. It's relevance to this post? None.

[Auburn85 432]

Where do we get our info? Through telepathy?

The media. NEWSPAPERS, TV, INTERNET.

I haven't got the call from a Bush person giving me the 411 on everything.

[Auburn85 432]

Heck, I bet if you asked some people, they would say they seen Bush doing his duty in Alabama, while others say they never seen him in Alabama doing hisduty.

Some probably believe that there was an electronic devise on his back during one of the debates so he could give reasonable answers to questions.

People actually have a disagreement on whether a certain thing happened at an Auburn or Alabama game.

Why are we just concentrating on what people BELIEVE about the Iraq War.

We are over there, I don't think we should be wasting so much time over why we are over there.

No WMD have been found.

No DIRECT link between Saddam and 9/11

We are over there. No more Saddam, his sons are dead. Many terrorists have been caught or killed.

Why don't we ask these questions to Congress.

Most of them though will just dance around a tough question.

Like OJ not being found guilty of murder. People are no longer allowed to think they he was guilty of the murder.

But if we want to play the technicality game, he is not guilty of the murders, but yet he was in civil court.

People have different interrpretations of the Constitution.

Due to the same constitution some religious things have been taken out, while others using that same Constitution have been allowed to stay.

So believe what YOU want. So just because YOU think we don't answer your post correctly, doesn't mean we are INCORRECT. And visa versa with your comments and how we take them.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Heck, I bet if you asked some people, they would say they seen Bush doing his duty in Alabama, while others say they never seen him in Alabama doing hisduty.

Some probably believe that there was an electronic devise on his back during one of the debates so he could give reasonable answers to questions.

People actually have a disagreement on whether a certain thing happened at an Auburn or Alabama game.

Why are we just concentrating on what people BELIEVE about the Iraq War.

We are over there, I don't think we should be wasting so much time over why we are over there.

No WMD have been found.

No DIRECT link between Saddam and 9/11

We are over there. No more Saddam, his sons are dead. Many terrorists have been caught or killed.

Why don't we ask these questions to Congress.

Most of them though will just dance around a tough question.

Like OJ not being found guilty of murder. People are no longer allowed to think they he was guilty of the murder.

But if we want to play the technicality game, he is not guilty of the murders, but yet he was in civil court.

People have different interrpretations of the Constitution.

Due to the same constitution some religious things have been taken out, while others using that same Constitution have been allowed to stay.

So believe what YOU want. So just because YOU  think we don't answer your post correctly, doesn't mean we are INCORRECT. And visa versa with your comments and how we take them.

144783[/snapback]

Well, that wasn't random.

Hey, you're pretty touchy considering that I was just pointing out something you're good at.

[rexbo 104]

As George Constanza would say "Remember, it is not a lie if you believe it." That still didn't help Jerry, he still blew the lie detector test and lost his date with the pretty policewoman.