Hope to be right: Biased information seeking following arbitrary and informed predictions

Abstract

► We test four explanations of selective exposure (SE) to confirming information. ► Information seeking was measured following predictions of varying arbitrariness. ► Participants engaged in SE following arbitrary and informed predictions. ► Anticipated positive affective reactions predicted information selections. ► The positive affect associated with being correct can drive post-prediction SE. a b s t r a c tFive studies tested when and why individuals engage in confirmatory information searches (selective exposure) following predictions. Participants engaged in selective exposure following their own predictions, even when their predictions were completely arbitrary (Studies 1 and 3). The selective exposure was not simply the result of a cognitive bias tied to the salience of a prediction option (Study 2). Instead, it appears that making a prediction-regardless of how ill-informed a person is while making the prediction-can cause the person to anticipate enjoyment from being right (Studies 4 and 5) and to select new information consistent with that outcome. The results establish a desirability account that can explain post-prediction selective exposure effects even in cases when defense motivations, pre-existing differences, or positive-test strategies can be ruled out as explanations.

Information Avoidance

“…Information confirming a decision, in contrast, is unlikely to influence the decision, especially in a homogeneous group. Scherer, Windschitl, and Smith (2013), in a study of biased information seeking, observe confirmatory information acquisition even when the initial decision was made arbitrarily, which they argue is driven by a desire to be right in a prediction or belief. In one of their studies, participants had to decide which of two pieces of art would be preferred by other college students.…”

A neuropsychological investigation of decisional certainty

“…Being right, or seeing indications that one might be right, can be affectively rewarding. To induce this rewarding affective state, individuals might seek out information that suggests that they might be right, resulting in selective exposure (see Scherer, Windschitl, & Smith, 2013, for a description and preliminary evidence for these claims).…”

Dissonance and decision-making mistakes in the age of risk

“…They do so nonetheless because the political costs of omission are much higher than those of an overreaction" (Beck & Cronin, 2009: 53-54). While realised crises may present such opportunities to frame policy (Boin et al, 2009) In order to reduce dissonance associated with the lack of information supporting preventive policies, policymakers will likely seek information in a biased fashion to support their expectations (Scherer, Windschitl, & Smith 2013;Johnson & Tierney 2011 We can also see overconfidence in advance of a policy as an effort to mobilise support. Maor (2012) explicitly examines policy 'overreaction' from a psychological point of view, and argues that "…policy-makers may look for proactive framings of crisis management, especially the use of non-language in the form of highly visual and dramatic information that is easily remembered…" (243).…”