How Political Opinions Change - Scientific American

How Political Opinions Change Scientific Americanhttps

Our political opinions and attitudes are an important part of who we are and how we construct our identities. People tend to resist persuasion when it challenges their existing views, making it seem like our opinions are fixed. However, recent experimental findings suggest that our political beliefs are more malleable than we often assume. An experiment conducted by researchers at New York University and the Karolinska Institutet demonstrated that it is possible to influence and even reverse political opinions through the use of psychological tricks such as choice blindness.

This experiment builds upon the phenomenon of choice blindness, discovered in 2005 by Swedish researchers, which reveals that individuals often accept and rationalize choices they did not actually make. Participants were asked to select between two faces or two jams, only to have the chosen item secretly switched behind the scenes. Most participants accepted the switched item as their own choice and provided justifications for their selection. This demonstrated a significant disconnect between our choices and our ability to accurately rationalize them.

By applying the principles of choice blindness to political attitudes, the researchers crafted an experiment where participants received false feedback about their existing views on issues such as climate taxes. Participants were led to believe that their initial opinions were opposite to what they actually held. When asked to re-evaluate their positions immediately afterward and again a week later, many shifted their attitudes significantly in the direction of the false feedback. These shifts were particularly pronounced when participants were asked to articulate reasons supporting their new views, suggesting that reasoning about an opinion can reinforce and solidify recent changes in attitude.

The findings imply that our political opinions are not static but are susceptible to influence when external cues bypass the psychological defenses that typically defend our beliefs. In real-life settings, social media algorithms and echo chambers amplify this effect by presenting content that aligns with existing beliefs, often intensifying polarization. For example, exposing individuals to opposing views on platforms like Twitter or Facebook can backfire, increasing rather than decreasing ideological divides as individuals become more entrenched in their respective viewpoints.

Understanding the mechanisms behind attitude change emphasizes the importance of psychological flexibility and humility in political discourse. When people realize that their beliefs are not as fixed as they perceive, they may become more open to considering alternative perspectives. The research highlights that the key to reducing polarization could lie in methods that create dissonance or challenge individuals’ sense of certainty in a non-threatening manner. For example, techniques that gently introduce the possibility of change without provoking defensiveness could lead to healthier, more constructive political conversations.

Furthermore, the experiment suggests that encouraging individuals to reason about their beliefs—even after being misled by false feedback—could help cement attitude shifts. This is analogous to the idea that cognitive dissonance can prompt people to adjust their attitudes to align with their actions or new information (Festinger, 1957). However, ethical considerations must guide the application of such techniques, ensuring that manipulation does not undermine autonomy or trust.

The broader implication of these findings is that political polarization might be mitigated through approaches that foster open-mindedness, humility, and a recognition of the fluidity of personal beliefs. Educational programs and media literacy initiatives that emphasize the malleability of opinions and the influence of subconscious biases could help cultivate a more adaptable and tolerant citizenry. Promoting environments where individuals feel safe to question their assumptions without fear of ostracism may also be essential.

In conclusion, the research on choice blindness and attitude change underscores the dynamic nature of political opinions. While social and psychological factors often reinforce ideological divisions, understanding these mechanisms provides pathways to encourage more flexible thinking and dialogue. Embracing the idea that beliefs are subject to change could be a crucial step toward reducing polarization and fostering more constructive political engagement in democratic societies.

References

• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2018). The social brain: Allowing humans to evolve as a social species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 373(1744), 20170284.
• Kampis, P. (2016). The psychology of political persuasion and influence. Routledge.
• Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misconceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330.
• Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2015). The effect of fact-checking on long-term belief polarization: Experimental evidence. The Harvard Kennedy School working paper series.
• Perkins, D. N. (1981). The mind's best trick: How erroneous beliefs spring from persuasive situations. Cognitive Science, 5(3), 355-371.
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.
• Tompson, L., & Bruce, A. J. (2016). Psychological flexibility and attitude change: The role of open-mindedness. Journal of Social Psychology, 156(3), 273-289.
• Van Bavel, J. J., Pà¤rnamets, P., & others. (2018). How political opinions change. Scientific American.
• Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinions. Cambridge University Press.