We believe what we want to believe. Or do we? At least, it seems that way to me sometimes. This link between beliefs and facts raises issues more complicated than simple desire and bias. In a 2009 scientific study, psychologists and sociologists  observed and documented how people respond when faced with overwhelming evidence that contradicts their beliefs. In the study, the researchers studied the link between the attacks on 9/11 and Saddam. During the 2004 presidential election, many Americans believed that Saddam was at least partially responsible for the terrorist attacks. People with these beliefs tended more to vote for Bush than Kerry. But no evidence for this link has ever been found.

The researchers presented two pieces of evidence to those interviewees who held this false belief. These were 1) A conclusion from the 9/11 Commission Report that stated Saddam was not involved, and 2) A statement from President Bush himself stating that there was no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. The researchers presented these facts in a conversational but firm manner. Then, the researchers studied the responses to these facts.

Scholars have explained this perceived link between Saddam & 9/11 through a model called ‘Bayesian Updating’, which assumes people come to decisions by “incrementally and rationally changing their opinions” in light of new evidence. Most researchers determined that the Bush administration and the media had persuaded the general public that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11 by modifying the ‘information environment’. Therefore, these researchers concluded that had the American public possessed the correct information, they would have reached the true conclusion. But this recent study concludes that a different socio-psychological phenomenon is at work; it was not the disinformation that caused their misunderstanding.
Continue Reading... “There must be a Reason”: Motivated Reasoning