Justifying Controversial Beliefs: An Examination

In a society where opinions are often polarized, the use of rationales can significantly impact the sharing and reception of dissenting views, according to a new study conducted by Georgy Egorov, a professor at the Kellogg School.

The research, which focused on efforts to defund the police in the United States and the conservative stance of immediate deportation for all Mexican immigrants living in the country illegally, aimed to understand how rationales can make it easier for people to express unpopular opinions.

In the first experiment, participants were shown an op-ed arguing against defunding the police and were asked whether they would privately join a campaign to oppose defunding. After reading the op-ed, participants who agreed to join the campaign were divided into two groups. One group was presented with a tweet that indicated they had seen the article before joining the campaign, while the other group was not given this information. The researchers found that the one-word difference in the tweets had a significant influence on participants' willingness to voice opposition to defunding the police.

In the second experiment, participants were recruited as Republicans and right-leaning Independents, and they saw a clip from Tucker Carlson Tonight arguing for immediate deportation. Similar to the first experiment, participants saw a tweet ostensibly from their matched partner, either with or without the article from The Washington Post as a cover. The researchers found that the use of the cover tweet changed how participants interpreted the tweeters' motivations, making them less likely to associate the opinions with prejudice.

The use of the article as a cover also resulted in more participants authorizing a $1 bonus to their partner. Among participants who saw the cover tweet, more guessed their partner had donated to the NAACP compared to those who saw the no-cover tweet.

The researchers suggest that labeling misinformation as such on social media sites could reduce the degree of social cover and make it less effective as a rationale. They also highlight the importance of providing rationales for dissenting opinions, as they can enhance credibility, foster debate, and mitigate groupthink.

The study provides valuable insights into the role of rationales in a polarized society, offering a potential solution to the challenges of censorship and self-censorship, as well as a means to challenge extreme views and break down echo chambers. As Egorov notes, the water-muddying quality of rationales helps explain the power of misinformation online, and understanding their impact is crucial in promoting open discussion and intellectual freedom.

[1] Judiciary Perception: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/25/supreme-court-ruling-on-daca-damages-public-trust-in-the-judiciary.html [2] Engagement and Debate: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1068414619882693 [3] Polarization and Echo Chambers: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-political-mind/201809/the-echo-chamber-effect-social-media-and-politics [4] Mitigating Groupthink: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3657662/

In the realm of politics, the impact of rationales extends beyond defunding the police and immigration policies, they can also shape opinions on general news topics such as car accidents, crime and justice, and policy and legislation.
According to the study, the use of social media sites, particularly for the dissemination of misinformation, can create a sense of social cover that makes extreme views more acceptable.
Interestingly, the researchers found that providing a rationalization, like a link to a reputable news article, can increase the credibility of dissenting opinions and foster debate in areas like entertainment, pop-culture, war-and-conflicts, sci-fi-and-fantasy, and even in the realm of pop culture.
Conversely, the lack of rationales can lead to self-censorship, as we've seen in the judiciary, where public trust can be damaged due to a lack of clear reasoning or explanation, as seen in the Supreme Court ruling on DACA.
The study also suggests that labeling misinformation on social media could help combat the power of misinformation online and promote open discussion, as outlined in engaging and debate articles like this one: [Engagement and Debate]
As we navigate the complexities of a polarized society, understanding the role of rationales in shaping opinions can help us break down echo chambers, mitigate groupthink, and promote intellectual freedom. [1] [3] [4]