Winter 2023 Colloquia
Monday, January 9, 2023
Political Endorsement by Nature and Trust in Scientific Expertise During COVID-19
ABSTRACT: High-profile political endorsements by scientific publications are common in recent years, raising concerns about backlash against the endorsing organizations and scientific expertise. In a preregistered large-sample controlled experiment, I randomly assigned participants to receive information about endorsement of Joe Biden by the scientific journal Nature during the COVID-19 pandemic. The endorsement message caused large reductions in stated trust in Nature among Trump supporters. This distrust lowered demand for COVID-related information provided by Nature, as evidenced by substantially reduced requests for Nature articles on vaccine efficacy when offered. The endorsement also reduces Trump supporters' trust in scientists in general. Estimated effects on Biden supporters' trust in Nature and scientists were positive, small, and mostly statistically insignificant. I find little evidence that the endorsement changes views about Biden and Trump. These results suggest that political endorsement by scientific journals can undermine and polarize public confidence in the endorsing journals and the scientific community.
Floyd Zhang, Political Economics Program at the Stanford Graduate School of Business
Monday, January 23, 2023
From Informational Beliefs to Complex Political Attitudes: A Bayesian Analysis
ABSTRACT: Researchers have long assumed that people's attitudes toward a complex object are shaped by the information they receive and believe. The information processing mechanism underlying the formation of attitudes, however, is still not well understood. Leveraging Bayesian statistical techniques, the current study proposed a model to estimate how multiple informational beliefs associated with different aspects of the attitude object collectively shaped the overall attitude. Through simulations of different counterfactual scenarios, the study also showed what the public attitudes would be like if people were better-informed, providing support for the efforts of correcting dis/misinformation.
Gabriel Li, Department of Communication at the University of Michigan
Monday, January 30, 2023
Policymaker Evaluations of Evidence: Motivated Reasoning, Ambiguity, and Utility of Accuracy Motives
ABSTRACT: In an online experiment with a national sample of local elected officials, we replicate prior work providing evidence of biased reasoning among policymakers. We also evaluate two novel message strategies, based on the literature on motivated reasoning, for reducing policymaker biased reasoning: a) decreasing the ambiguity of evidence and b) increasing the utility of accuracy judgments. Unlike prior efforts to reduce biased reasoning among policymakers, we find some evidence that our efforts influence policymaker judgments. First, when constituents provide unambiguous evidence of their knowledge about an issue, policymakers are less likely to discount their opinions. Second, increasing the utility of accurate judgments about an issue by providing evidence that the issue is related to election outcomes influences policymaker ratings of policy-relevant evidence quality. We discuss the implications for theories of motivated reasoning as well as practical implications for communicating with policymakers.
Dan Bergan, Department of Communication at Michigan State University
Monday, February 6, 2023
Persuasion, Influence and Value: Perspectives from communication and social neuroscience
ABSTRACT: We are facing global challenges, including intertwined mental health crises, the ongoing pandemic, spikes in our collective blood pressure, and more frequent and severe climate disasters. How do we maintain a sense of wellness in the face of these challenges? In this colloquium, we'll first explore how the brain's response to peers and media shapes individual decisions and larger scale action. Next, we'll consider what types of interventions can change brain responses that impact behavior. Finally, we'll explore how ideas and behaviors spread from brain to brain, to shift norms and change culture.
Emily Falk, Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania
Monday, February 27, 2023
The Dialectical Public: A Quantum Model of Public Opinion
ABSTRACT: The study of public opinion has been strongly influenced by a classical paradigm, rooted in Newtonian physics, of the world made of discrete and persisting objects. The model of opinions as discrete and persisting objects was challenged when Philip Converse in the 1960s revealed the anomalous finding that, when respondents were asked the same questions repeatedly over time, responses were highly inconsistent. He argued that the public attitudes were largely incoherent, questioning the viability of public opinion influencing policy. Defense of the classical model based on measurement error has only been partially successful. This study proposes an alternative model of public opinion based on the quantum model of objects being in a superpositional state until measured. Prototypical respondents are seen as being in a dialectical state, finding validity in opposing arguments, though taking positions when asked. Evaluations of 52 sets of pro and con arguments for policy options by 62,825 respondents’ (mean n per arguments set: 2,282) were analyzed. Contrary to a classical model that would predict that the distribution of responses would be bimodal or u-shaped, the distribution was predominantly normal (mean excess kurtosis -0.62). In 48 of the 52 cases a large majority found at least one pro and one con argument convincing. However, when asked for their final policy position, nearly all respondents not only answered (dk rates 1-3%), but their answers correlated significantly (p<0.0001) and positively with their responses to the arguments (mean Pearson correlation: 0.48). This suggests that apparently inconsistent responses reflect respondents embracing competing values and seeking integrative options. Presented policy options are evaluated accordingly as part of an ongoing, probabilistically structured dialectical process. Implications for the viability of public opinion playing a role in democracy are discussed.
Steven Kull, Founder and President of Voice of the People