I've been meaning to post on this, 'cause it just irks me. I'm sure many of you likely saw this study:
Political bias affects brain activity, study finds
Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions without letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows.
"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," said Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory University. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."
However, what wasn't emphasized in most of the reports I could find online was this little kicker (quoting from the NY Times, unfortunately no longer free, but portions quoted over here a the Scientific Activist):
In 2004, the researchers recruited 30 adult men who described themselves as committed Republicans or Democrats. The men, half of them supporters of President Bush and the other half backers of Senator John Kerry, earned $50 to sit in an M.R.I. machine and consider several statements in quick succession.
"Committed Republicans or Democrats." Like, maybe, ones that actually pay attention to what their candidates say.
The first was a quote attributed to one of the two candidates: either a remark by Mr. Bush in support of Kenneth L. Lay, the former Enron chief, before he was indicted, or a statement by Mr. Kerry that Social Security should be overhauled. Moments later, the participants read a remark that showed the candidate reversing his position. The quotes were doctored for maximum effect but presented as factual.
So they threw *doctored quotes* at these "committed Republicans or Democrats," and then were shocked when they responded in an emotional instead of logical manner. Isn't it possible--nay, probable--that these people knew the quotes were a little iffy, thereby getting ticked off or frustrated?
I'd love to point y'all to their paper for more analysis of just how "doctored" the quotes were, but alas, the whole story stems from a conference presentation. I hope someone with more of a psych background covers it when the research is published.
- Log in to post comments
That was our plan at CogDaily. We only report peer reviewed stuff there, so we've given it nary a mention so far. I'll be interested to see if this article even makes it through peer review.
That's a huge beef I've got with MSM reporting on research -- it's not just the peer review process that's broken, it's the media reporting on stuff before it's even published.
Excellent--I'd love to see your take on it (if it even gets into the lit, as you mention). And I share your beef. Those types of stories are impossible to dig into, unless you happen to be at the conference and can report on their presentation. In the meantime, there it sits all over the blogosphere, slowly becoming conventional wisdom. Frustrating.
I posted about it with some caution (I wrote something like "I am just reporting on the reporting") and am looking forward to seeing the actual paper(s) if and when they become available.
The paper is available for download after you request the password: The neural basis of motivated reasoning http://www.psychsystems.net/lab/type4.cfm?id=400§ion=4&source=200&s…
Groovy, thanks! I'll email them, but I wonder if they'll let that one be accessed yet, since it's still under revision and hasn't been accepted for publication yet.