The Bad News About Correcting Myths
In light of Frank Gaffney’s latest efforts to hype up the “Obama is a secret Muslim” myth, Brendan Nyhan draws my attention to the fact that he and several collaborators have a working paper (PDF) that specifically looks at this myth to test some larger ideas about how to correct political misinformation. The conclusions, unfortunately, are not all that encouraging:
In this paper, we address the question of how to counter political misperceptions, which are often difficult or impossible to eradicate. One explanation for this difficulty is that corrections frequently take the form of a negation (i.e. “Tom is not sick”), a construction that may fail to reduce the association between the subject and the concept being negated (Mayo et al. 2004). We apply this approach to the persistent rumor from the 2008 presidential campaign that Barack Obama is a Muslim, comparing the effectiveness of what we call a misperception negation (“I am not and never have been of the Muslim faith”) with what we call a corrective affirmation (“I am a Christian”), which should be more effective. As expected, we find that the misperception negation was ineffective. However, our hypothesis that the corrective affirmation would successfully reduce misperceptions was only supported when a non-white experimental administrator was present, suggesting a strong social desirability effect on the acceptance of corrective information. In addition, three-way interactions between the corrective affirmation, race of administrator, and party identification suggest that social desirability effects were more prevalent among Republicans. When nonwhite administrators were absent, the corrective affirmation not only failed to reduce Republican misperceptions but caused a backfire effect in which GOP identifiers became more likely to believe Obama is Muslim and less likely to believe he was being honest about his religion. We interpret this reaction as being driven by Obama’s embrace of Christianity, which may provoke cognitive dissonance among Republicans.
In other words, in politics getting your allies to lie about your opponents can be a very effective political tactic. Similarly, people who care about honesty ought to consider themselves very seriously obligated to reprimand people who are deliberately spreading misinformation. At the end of the day, it’s extremely difficult to actually counter misinformation, and so society needs there to be disincentives to spreading it.
33 Responses to “The Bad News About Correcting Myths”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 10th, 2009 at 8:31 am
Have they tried the “Frank Gaffney is a lying shithead who is hurting the country” approach?
Worked pretty well when Jon Stewart tried it. Anybody seen Tucker Carlson lately?
June 10th, 2009 at 8:41 am
I suspect misperceptions are hardest to eliminate when they fit with a general narrative preconception. In this case, the GOP preconception with respect to Obama was that he is a scary radical other, which ropes in race, religion, economics, social issues, and so on.
June 10th, 2009 at 8:50 am
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
June 10th, 2009 at 8:50 am
I think the problem is that, since middle school, nobody’s threatened guys like Gaffney with actual physical harm. Back on the playground, you mouth off, you have to defend yourself; mouth off to the wrong guy, and you’re in the shit. For instance, little Frank Gaffney makes shit up about Little Barry Obama’s dad, and little Barry meets little Frank at the monkey bars after 3.
I know this sounds a bit extreme, but long after people stopped settling their differences with fists (like, when most of us reached the age of twelve), the Gaffneys of the world continued to provoke and, generally, act like total dickheads–after twelve, there was little fear of reprisal for acting like a twelve-year-old smart-ass. So I propose the beat-down method, or if you prefer, “aversion therapy.”. Sooner or later, Gaffney’s going to go to a restaurant, movie, drag-show, etc. When he goes to the can, put the beat-down on his ass. Put him down like a cripple in a Don Rickles audience; piss on his crumpled form; afterwards, remind him verbally that it’s dangerous to spread false rumors.
That would be fighting force with a different kind of force–the kind that cowards like Gaffney understand. Plus, it would be cathartic to see tools who operate with impunity, who fear no retribution for flagrant rhetorical offenses, to be on the receiving end of “asymmetrical force” for a change. A few instances of always being the guy with a knife at a gun-fight might cause liars like Gaffney, Surber, etc. to edit their commentary in a more “responsible” manner. Sometimes, settling one’s hash is the only way to establish boundaries.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Nelson Muntz, congratulations on aping the argument style of right wing nut jobs everywhere. Clearly it’s the non-fighting nerds who’re at fault for everything!!
June 10th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Firas:
Them’s fighting words.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:12 am
ps: Firas,
You DO know who Nelson Muntz is, right?
Way to connect the dots there!
June 10th, 2009 at 9:13 am
I’d settle for Frank Gaffney and the other members of the Dick Cheney Fan Club being treated in public like the fringe whackos they are.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Using a non-violent take on Nelson’s post, the problem is that the Frank Gaffneys of the world don’t face any tangible consequences for their actions, and the right-wing infrastructure is designed specifically to isolate Gaffneys from consequences. Most people in a public position who are caught repeatedly lying would be fired and find it difficult to find a new job or, at least, to ever get his work published. Gaffney, however, is a beneficiary of various wingnut-welfare sinecures which allow him to remain financially secure as well as having public outlets for his writings to be published. And, meanwhile, his right-wing colleagues continue to take him seriously and socialize with him.
I suspect, however, that outside the right-wing, there may be plenty of journalists and perhaps political figures who enjoy his company and have dinner with him, as well, and they’re enabling Gaffney as well. The guy faces no social consequence for lying, and this only causes the problem to metasticize.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Not a realistic proposal, Mr Muntz.
The Democratic leadership and punditry do not have the balls to even publicly CRITICIZE Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly — although they sometimes bravely rebuke the REPUBLICANS for not having the courage to confront Rush or O’Reilly.
Lies in our political discourse are greatly hurting the country. But while you can be jailed for pushing someone, there is no legal penalty for sending 4500+ US soldiers to their deaths for the sake of private agendas.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:20 am
At least I know now why I never meet any of these crazy white people when I’m around. They are less crazy in my presence.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Nelson Muntz, congratulations on aping the argument style of right wing nut jobs everywhere. Clearly it’s the non-fighting nerds who’re at fault for everything!!
Ha ha!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX7wtNOkuHo
June 10th, 2009 at 9:24 am
In other words, in politics getting your allies to lie about your opponents can be a very effective political tactic.
Oh, for Ford’s sake, politicians in general, and Republicans in particular, have known this fact for decades, and didn’t need some fancy-pants study to tell them, either.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:25 am
The Democratic leadership and punditry do not have the balls to even publicly CRITICIZE Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly
Oh b.s., they criticize them all the time.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:27 am
I thought that the take-home message from the experiment is that subjects modulate the views they express depending on who’s asking the questions.
Or, even wingnuts can be afraid to be racist to someone’s face (depending on the face).
June 10th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Oh b.s., they criticize them all the time.
I think Rahm and Barack figured out the dynamic with Republicans very well. Whatever you say, they’ll attack and deny. So they didn’t go around saying that Rush was a force of evil. They went around saying that Republicans need to stop listening to Rush and treating him like their leader. The instinctive Republican reaction to this, coming out of Barack and Rahm? “We’re NOT listening to Rush and he’s NOT our leader!” which prompted retaliation from Rush against these Republicans.
There might be a lesson to be learned here that could be integrated into this study.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:30 am
I have a secret source who tells me that Frank Gaffney felches sheep.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:30 am
There has always been a large bloc of crazy people willing to believe anything in this country. Now, they post comments on the internet, is all.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Matt says “society needs disincentives”, but unfortunately that works only when Democrats or liberals cross over some imaginary line. Thus, MoveOn is censured by the House for making a pun “Patraeus – Betray US”, but Limbaugh gets paid big bucks for “Hitlery feminazi” punning.
The major media outlets reinforce and amplify nonsense from the right wing, either directly or indirectly.
Like what I call “Jeopardy journalism”, i.e. pass on nonsense in the form of a question. Thus, Steve Croft on 60 Minutes asks Hillary Clinton if Obama is a Muslim, knowing full well that he is not. The casual listener hears this line of questioning, and thinks, gee, there must be something there if a show like 60 Minutes brings it up.
Or the old “some say” ruse, like Stephanopolis “Some call this an apology tour”. If he said “Fox News says …” then it would have much less punch.
Or what Digby calls “Cokie’s rule” – the Villagers get to discuss anything the right wing puts out, no matter how discredited and disreputable the source.
Major media outlets will continue to treat Gingrich like some kind of elder statesman, giving him an open mic to say any over the top invective slamming Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, Sotomayor, etc.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:38 am
the Villagers get to discuss anything the right wing puts out, no matter how discredited and disreputable the source.
MattY and Ezra Klein are well on their way to becoming the Villagers of tomorrow. The question is whether they’ll be willing to properly ostracize and force consequences on the right-wing liars of tomorrow. Their continued dealings with Megan McArdle do not give us any reasons for optimism on this score.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Re Don Williams # 1
Have they tried the “Frank Gaffney is a lying shithead who is hurting the country” approach?
Worked pretty well when Jon Stewart tried it. Anybody seen Tucker Carlson lately?
There goes Mr. Williams, talking about himself again.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:08 am
We interpret this reaction as being driven by Obama’s embrace of Christianity, which may provoke cognitive dissonance among Republicans.
Recall all those Republicans who simultaneously asserted that Obama was a Muslim while also going on about his pastor the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Why a Muslim would attend a Christian church never seemed to occur to them…..
June 10th, 2009 at 10:28 am
It has been ever thus.
“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.”
June 10th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Tyro’s on to something with this:
Forcing them to deny a connection, according to the study, actually reinforces the connection. So there is now a general perception that the de facto leaders of the GOP are Rush and Cheney.
The Republicans have been doing this for years – asking Dems to distance themselves from the Wrights, Sharptons and Ayers of the world. “When did you stop beating your wife?” is a very effective strategy to insinuate that someone is a wife beater. Saying “I’ve never beat my wife” or “I love my wife” are ineffective because the connection’s been made.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Forcing them to deny a connection, according to the study, actually reinforces the connection.
But it’s not just that– a truly effective attack along these lines results in the denial hurting the denier with his base.
Plenty of people think Obama’s a Muslim. While it might offend our liberal sensibilities because we believe in the moral value of believing truthful things instead of false things, there’s little if any electoral consequence. If Republicans want to be nutbars, it’s a free country. The real damage would have come if Obama reacted to such an accusation by saying, “I’m absolute NOT a Muslim and I have nothing to do with Muslims and their belief system is a false one I learned about and rejected!” Then, not only did the Republican base not change their mind on the issue, but Obama suddenly offended a lot of people who would have voted for him, possibly forcing Obama to go back to the Muslim community to make some kind of act of penance in search of their votes, only reinforcing the “Obama is a Muslim” meme more if he did that. Obama was smart enough not to fall into that trap. The Republicans, however, took the bait when it came to Rahm and Barack taunting them about Rush.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:55 am
George Lakoff has studied the use of emotional triggers to shape political opinions for years.
One of his key findings has been that by accepting the framing of those who you oppose you end up losing before you start.
In this case introducing the word Muslim for those battling the misperception is the mistake.
Of course, neither side is willing to address the real issue, what would be wrong if Obama was a Muslim? By supporting his Christianity his defenders are still yielding to the unspoken subtext: Muslim = bad, Christian = good.
No wonder the US makes so little progress in changing opinions about our motives in the middle east. The people in the region can read this subtext just as clearly as the bigots in the US.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Well, we know where this is heading: a Frank Gaffney op ed piece in the Washington Post making the Moslem charge, followed by the Post’s ringing defense of freedom of speech. This is a Fred Hiatt natural!
June 10th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
I’ve got to go with Nelson Muntz on this one. Early intervention, (the monkey bars at 3:00) is key.
The Gaffneys who don’t completely internalize the lesson, will eventually develop a telling facial tic. A little like turning the devil’s ankle and making his approach more obvious.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
So what disincentives should be in place to discourage people from presenting unrealistically optimistic numbers regarding transit ridership?
“On the idea that ridership estimates are unrealistically optimistic, it seems to me that the sad reality of politics is that it would be irresponsible for advocates of any large-scale infrastructure project to do anything other than present unrealistically optimistic measures. For better or for worse, that’s politics.”
June 10th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Worth reposting:
http://clrapp.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/snowmanimage.jpg
June 10th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Well, unless I missed it, I didn’t see anyone in this thread condemning Gaffney, and there is your answer to how people like Gaffney get away with things.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
“Similarly, people who care about honesty ought to consider themselves very seriously obligated to reprimand people who are deliberately spreading misinformation.”
And that, in a nutshell, is why I loathe the mainstream media. Perhaps it’s not their obligation to reprimand anyone, but it’s DAMN sure their obligation to fact-check the wild claims that they repeat verbatim in the name of “balance”. If the press cannot competently do its job, then Democrats can only hope to win by fighting fire with fire. Our political discourse is already so far in the crapper I don’t think it will matter much. But making stuff up will be much more fun than having to find those boring facts to back up an argument.
So without further ado: I just heard on the news that Newt Gingrich is planning to run as the first openly gay presidential candidate in 2012. Discuss amongst yourselves.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Unfortunately, this method also works for preventing people from telling the truth, and practitioners of this method have much more experience using it that way.