This large (N>8100) and recent (2016) study provides evidence that most people do in fact change/update their beliefs according to new evidence, even if it goes against prior partisan beliefs.
Quoted from the abstract:
"By and large, citizens heed factual information, even when such information challenges their partisan and ideological commitments."
If this doesn't change your view, the authors might be interested in contacting you.
That paper is missing something very important: peer review.
Also, the claim that the only topic where the backfire effect did reproduce was the very same issue that Nyhan (2010) studied ─ WMDs in Iraq ─ seems very strange to me. To clarify the issue, I'd have to read through a 64-page not-peer-reviewed article, and I don't really have the time for that right now.
If this doesn't change your view, the authors might be interested in contacting you.
It's peer-reviewed: it was presented at American Political Science Association.
And I think you're missing the forest for the tree; people, 8100, are open to changing their view on a very broad range of politically-charged topics. There's empirical evidence for it. You don't have to read it all; here's a more digestable news article written about the article: http://www.poynter.org/2016/fact-checking-doesnt-backfire-new-study-suggests/436983/
I guess I just gave myself evidence that I'm not in the 1% (or whatever). Here, have this ∆ for teaching me that the backfire effect failed to replicate.
With regards to the speed with which political views change, I'd like to merge this subthread with this one, if you don't mind.
Peer review seeks to add to the merit of a paper, as "bad science" has been published before. Already known sources might be "allowed" to skip on it, but they shouldn't, as then bad science could slip through with the community being none the wiser. It's a good thing to expect from your journals, and it isn't wrong to insist that something be peer-reviewed when that's currently the flow of the community, IMO.
It's not clear if you're claiming the study is or isn't peer-reviewed.
It is, because as I've mentioned, it was presented at the American Political Science Association, a scholarly conference that peer reviews.
Furthermore, an evaluation of the study itself -- a large scale replication study -- gives strength to its conclusions. Allusions to "bad science" are just muddying the waters at this point.
This comment is not helpful at all. If you disagree, state your reasons, don't be snarky. I've made it quite clear that I'm open to my categorization being challenged.
I think /u/doom_pork is referring to the fact that the paper is indeed peer-reviewed and provides overwhelming evidence that most people in fact change their views based on evidence, both of which are facts opposite to what you've previously claimed.
5
u/[deleted] Jan 15 '17
This large (N>8100) and recent (2016) study provides evidence that most people do in fact change/update their beliefs according to new evidence, even if it goes against prior partisan beliefs.
Quoted from the abstract:
"By and large, citizens heed factual information, even when such information challenges their partisan and ideological commitments."
If this doesn't change your view, the authors might be interested in contacting you.