Hearing the Other Side? – Debiasing Political Opinions in the Case of the Scottish Independence Referendum

Abstract

This study reports the effects of two debiasing strategies on the complexity of people’s thinking on a controversial policy issue – the question of Scottish independence. I start from the well-researched assumptions of motivated reasoning theory that individuals tend to protect their beliefs, are often not willing to hear the other side and fail to integrate contrasting arguments and different perspectives in their political considerations – although considering different viewpoints is a fundamental normative requirement for democratic decision-making. Two different debiasing techniques, which are meant to counteract this tendency and to evoke more integrative and complex thinking, were tested experimentally: a cognitive and a motivational strategy. The experiment was situated in the context of the Scottish independence referendum. The expectation of accountability – having to justify one’s opinion in front of unknown others – significantly enhanced integrative complexity of thinking about the issue, while inducing subjects to consider the opposite had no significant effect. Opinion strength and political knowledge did not affect the treatment effects significantly.

Seeing the Other Side? Perspective-Taking and Reflective Political Judgements in Interpersonal Deliberation

“…Future research could endeavour to improve on these measures. For example, in future research, reflection could be captured through thought-listing techniques (Weinmann, 2017) or the cognitive complexity of reasoning measure (Colombo, 2018).…”

“…Fishkin, 2009;Luskin et al, 2002;Suiter et al, 2016), increased cognitive complexity of political reasoning (e.g. Colombo, 2018) and better alignment between values, beliefs and preferences (Niemeyer, 2019;Niemeyer and Dryzek, 2007) among citizen deliberators. 1 Yet, little is known about the mechanisms underlying these transformations.…”

Accountability as a Warrant for Trust: An Experiment on Sanctions and Justifications in a Trust Game

“…Besley's definition exemplifies a prominent feature of the formally oriented literature on democracy, namely that elected representatives are expected to act in the interests of voters because of the risk of not being re-elected. 1 In addition to material sanctions, various types of immaterial or social sanctions, such as reputational effects, may also motivate those holding public offices (Colombo, 2018;Lerner & Tetlock, 1999).…”

Food for Thought: A Longitudinal Investigation of Reflection-Promoting Speech in Televised Election Debates (1985–2019)

“…(Dryzek, 2000, pp. 1-2) 1 . A reflective citizenry is less likely to take shortcuts while reasoning and is less easily manipulated, leading to epistemically better and more legitimate political opinions and decisions (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019;Colombo, 2018). This allows to move away from 'echo chamber' thinking and partisan motivated reasoning, which could reduce political polarization (Arceneaux & Vander Wielen, 2017;Brader & Tucker, 2018).…”

“…As a result, election debates have the potential to promote more reflective reasoning among citizens (Coleman, 2020). Weighing and integrating different political arguments and perspectives (i.e., reflective reasoning) can make citizens more immune to elite and media manipulation, heighten the epistemic value of political opinions, and increase the legitimacy of political decisions (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019;Colombo, 2018). It is, however, unclear whether televised debates live up to this reflection-promoting potential.…”