As a psychology 101 instructor whose students are largely
non-psychology majors, I generally introduce the course objectives by stating,
“You are going to forget most of what I teach you in this class.” Although that
may sound like a pessimistic way to begin a semester, there is a reason for
this statement. Those students that elect not to major in psychology will
likely forget about schedules of reinforcement, the functions of the parietal
lobe, and the specifics of Piaget’s stages, and that’s ok. What I expect them to take from my course is
an ability to think critically about issues that they will face in the future,
whether they be personal, political, or otherwise – a skill that will be useful
to them throughout their lives, no matter their chosen career. Throughout the
course, we discuss a number of psychological phenomena that affect critical
thinking abilities. What follows is a breakdown of a number of these phenomena,
using the current debate surrounding the Syrian refugee crisis as a framework.
These phenomena include biases in thinking as well as social psychological
principles. For the sake of brevity, I will divide this into two posts: the
first discussing thinking biases, and the second addressing social
psychological concepts.
First, I want to discuss critical thinking briefly. While
there are multiple theories regarding stages/levels of critical thinking, the
one we focus on in my course was developed by King and Kitchener (2004), who
proposed several levels of critical thinking divided into 3 categories:
1)
Pre-reflective
thinkers tend to assume that a correct answer always exists and that it can
be obtained through the senses or from authorities. So, in thinking about the
refugee crisis, pre-reflective thinkers are likely to base their opinions on
what they hear from whatever politicians, media, or other “authority figures”
believe. Certainly we are all influenced by this, but pre-reflective thinkers
take no other steps to think for themselves. They are also uncomfortable with
nuance or a lack of certainty, believing a clear solution is always available.
These individuals will assume that some action (bombing Syria, putting troops
on the ground, impeaching the president, refusing refugees, etc.) will solve
the problem of ISIS.
2)
Quasi-reflective
thinkers recognize that some things cannot be known with absolute certainty
and that judgments should be supported by evidence, yet they pay attention only
to evidence that fits what they already believe. On the positive side, they are
able to acknowledge that a clear correct solution may not always exist. The
issue of ISIS is a perfect example. How can we get rid of them? Should we put
boots on the ground and stomp them out, likely being forced to occupy
indefinitely to keep the peace? Should we bomb from afar? Should we stay out of
the Middle East completely? There are no easy answers here. On the
other hand, quasi-reflective thinkers ignore evidence that goes against their
beliefs - another powerful psychological concept referred to as “confirmation
bias” – something I am certainly not immune to despite being aware of. Those
who do not want to allow Syrian refugees into the U.S. are likely to only pay
attention to the information that Syrians are dangerous, only read articles criticizing
the Obama administration, and ignore conflicting evidence/perspectives. Thus, a
conservative individual may obtain his news only from Fox News Channel, which
confirms the individual’s beliefs and results in making them even stronger.
Those on the other side are equally likely to pay attention only to evidence
that would support the acceptance of Syrian refugees.
3)
Those who use reflective judgment acknowledge that some things can never be known
with certainty, but some judgments are more valid than others. These
individuals also use dialectical
reasoning, which involves considering and comparing opposing points of view
in order to resolve differences (essentially what juries are supposed to do in
deciding a case). Most people show no evidence of reflective judgment until their
middle or late 20s, if ever.
Before we move on, I want to make an additional point about
confirmation bias. Have you ever tried arguing with someone about something you
both feel strongly about? Have you ever successfully changed someone’s mind on
that issue? Probably not, and confirmation bias is one of the main reasons why.
Let me tell you about a recent study that explained how this works. Researchers
at UCLA divided adults whom were skeptical of the safety of vaccinations into
three groups. One group was provided information from the CDC explaining that
the Measles, Mumps, & Rubella (MMR) vaccine is safe. The second group read
materials that described the dangers of those diseases and viewed images of
children with the diseases, as well as information on how vaccines can prevent
the diseases. The third group was a control that read a statement unrelated to
MMR vaccines. The researchers found that explaining the dangers of the diseases
was the only approach that increased support for vaccination - presenting
evidence of the safety of vaccines had no effect (Home, Powell, Hummel, &
Holyoak, 2015).
That evidence doesn’t change people’s minds is no surprise.
Other research has found that not only do people ignore disconfirming evidence,
but when people have strong beliefs, such evidence can sometimes serve to make
people even more entrenched in their views (Nyhan & Reifler, 2010).
In addition to confirmation bias, we use certain shortcuts,
known as heuristics, to help us
quickly process information and make decisions (Myers & DeWall, 2014).
These heuristics are useful most of the time, but can sometimes lead us astray.
One such example is affect heuristic,
in which we judge the goodness of a situation based on how it makes us feel.
This is sort of like “going with your gut” and can be adaptive in many
situations. If you are in a situation and feel frightened, you are likely to
try to escape the situation, which could possibly save your life. At a more
mundane level, think about how you choose what cereal you are going to buy at
the store. You may go through each box, examining the nutrition content and
analyzing the taste, texture, price, and smell of each one; however, this would
probably waste a lot of time. Instead, you probably just see one that you feel positively
about, pull it off of the shelf, and move on with your day.
However, the affect heuristic can have other effects –
something media outlets know well. Using fearmongering techniques, media can
manipulate our emotions surrounding an issue, which affects how we feel about
it. Those who do not want to accept refugees have a strong fear of a terrorist
attack and likely Muslims in general. Others have an emotional reaction of
“empathy,” which outweighs their fear and influences them to welcome refugees.
The final concept I want to mention is another heuristic
called availability heuristic.
Basically, we tend to judge the probability of an event occurring based on how
easy it is to think of instances of that event. Whenever there is a terrorist
attack, we hear about it on the news, making that information very available in
our minds. What we do not hear about are stories about Muslim people who are
peaceful citizens and not terrorists. That information is not newsworthy.
Because it’s easier for us to recall examples of Muslims being terrorists than
examples of them being peaceful, we may overestimate the probability of a
Muslim refugee being a potential terrorist.
In part 2, I’ll talk about some of the social psychological
principles that are influencing people’s perceptions of whether refugees should
be welcomed into our country.
References
Home, Z., Powell, D., Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J.
(2015). Countering antivaccination attitudes. PNAS, 112, 10321-10324.
Hyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail:
The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303-330.
King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2004). Reflective
judgment: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions
through adulthood. Educational
Psychologist, 39, 5-18.
Myers, D. G., & DeWall, C. N. (2014). Psychology in
everyday life. New York: Worth.
No comments:
Post a Comment