IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/apl/wpaper/20-06.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Deliberation enhances the confirmation bias. An examination of politics and religion

Author

Listed:
  • David L. Dickinson

Abstract

This paper present new evidence on the confirmation bias in two polarizing topic areas: politics and religion. While a reasonable amount of evidence has documented this bias in the domain of politics, relatively little existing research has examined the confirmation bias in religion. I developed a novel task in the religious domain to examine the presence of the confirmation bias and its comparative strength compared to that observed in the political domain. Using a preregistered data collection and analysis plan, I examine data from n=402 participants who were prescreened to be distinct in terms of political and religious beliefs. Each was administered a two-pronged confirmation bias online that examined selective information exposure and perceived strength of arguments incongruent to one’s own beliefs regarding “gun control” and the “existence of God”. Results showed strong support for the existence of a confirmation bias along both dimensions and in terms of both information exposure and perceived argument strength. I also examined the hypothesis that the confirmation bias is actually stronger in situations where more thought or deliberation is brought to bear on the task. The evidence here depends on the measure of deliberation used, but generally is in the direction hypothesized. More strongly, we find that individuals who have thought a lot about the topic at hand (gun control and the existence of God displayed more of a confirmation bias in perceived argument strength than those having thought less about the issue. A main contribution of this paper is to offer new evidence documenting the confirmation bias in a more direct task comparison across domains. And, the findings regarding how deliberation may worsen the bias are in line with previous research suggesting the confirmation bias may be unlike other decision biases—this bias may thrive when the decision maker is more is more deliberative or thoughtful. Key Words: Confirmation bias, decision bias, politics, religion, behavioral economics

Suggested Citation

  • David L. Dickinson, 2020. "Deliberation enhances the confirmation bias. An examination of politics and religion," Working Papers 20-06, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
  • Handle: RePEc:apl:wpaper:20-06
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econ.appstate.edu/RePEc/pdf/wp2006.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin Jones & Robert Sugden, 2001. "Positive confirmation bias in the acquisition of information," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 59-99, February.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    3. Hunt Allcott & Matthew Gentzkow, 2017. "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election," NBER Working Papers 23089, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Christopher A. Bail & Lisa P. Argyle & Taylor W. Brown & John P. Bumpus & Haohan Chen & M. B. Fallin Hunzaker & Jaemin Lee & Marcus Mann & Friedolin Merhout & Alexander Volfovsky, 2018. "Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115(37), pages 9216-9221, September.
    5. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    6. Hunt Allcott & Matthew Gentzkow, 2017. "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 211-236, Spring.
    7. Russell Golman & David Hagmann & George Loewenstein, 2017. "Information Avoidance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(1), pages 96-135, March.
    8. Palan, Stefan & Schitter, Christian, 2018. "Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 22-27.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. David L. Dickinson, 2022. "Political ideology, mood response, and the confirmation bias," Working Papers 22-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    2. David L. Dickinson, 2020. "Deliberation Enhances the Confirmation Bias in Politics," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-25, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David L. Dickinson, 2020. "Deliberation Enhances the Confirmation Bias in Politics," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-25, November.
    2. Michele Coscia & Luca Rossi, 2022. "How minimizing conflicts could lead to polarization on social media: An agent-based model investigation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-23, January.
    3. Tetsuro Kobayashi & Fumiaki Taka & Takahisa Suzuki, 2021. "Can “Googling” correct misbelief? Cognitive and affective consequences of online search," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-16, September.
    4. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    5. Lohse, Johannes & McDonald, Rebecca, 2021. "Absolute groupishness and the demand for information," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242454, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    6. Felix Chopra & Ingar K. Haaland & Christopher Roth, 2019. "Do People Value More Informative News?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8026, CESifo.
    7. Sven Gruener, 2024. "Determinants of Gullibility to Misinformation: A Study of Climate Change, COVID-19 and Artificial Intelligence," Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, , vol. 36(1), pages 58-78, January.
    8. Deole, Sumit S. & Huang, Yue, 2020. "Suffering and prejudice: Do negative emotions predict immigration concerns?," GLO Discussion Paper Series 644, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    9. Thomas Fujiwara & Karsten Müller & Carlo Schwarz, 2021. "The Effect of Social Media on Elections: Evidence from the United States," NBER Working Papers 28849, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Mohamed Mostagir & James Siderius, 2022. "Learning in a Post-Truth World," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2860-2868, April.
    11. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/1dhd1b1s319fbai85khk40fudc is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Alessandro Nai, 2020. "The Trump Paradox: How Cues from a Disliked Source Foster Resistance to Persuasion," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 122-132.
    13. Edson C. Tandoc Jr. & Ryan J. Thomas & Lauren Bishop, 2021. "What Is (Fake) News? Analyzing News Values (and More) in Fake Stories," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 110-119.
    14. Abhishek Samantray & Paolo Pin, 2019. "Credibility of climate change denial in social media," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, December.
    15. Fabio Padovano & Pauline Mille, 2022. "Education, fake news and the PBC," Economics Working Paper from Condorcet Center for political Economy at CREM-CNRS 2022-01-ccr, Condorcet Center for political Economy.
    16. Fabio Padovano & Pauline Mille, 2023. "Education, fake news and the Political Budget Cycle," Economics Working Paper from Condorcet Center for political Economy at CREM-CNRS 2023-01-ccr, Condorcet Center for political Economy.
    17. Dickinson, David L., 2022. "Political Ideology, Mood Response, and the Confirmation Bias," IZA Discussion Papers 15428, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Buser, Thomas, 2024. "Adversarial Economic Preferences Predict Right-Wing Voting," IZA Discussion Papers 16711, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Bruno Carvalho & Claudia Custodio & Benny Geys & Diogo Mendes & Susana Peralta, 2020. "Information, Perceptions, and Electoral Behaviour of Young Voters: A Randomised Controlled Experiment," Working Papers ECARES 2020-14, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    20. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/1dhd1b1s319fbai85khk40fudc is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Gruener, Sven, 2021. "Susceptibility to misinformation: a study of climate change, Covid-19, and artificial intelligence," SocArXiv x8efq, Center for Open Science.
    22. Momsen, Katharina & Ohndorf, Markus, 2020. "Information Avoidance, Selective Exposure, and Fake(?) News - A Market Experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2020 (Virtual Conference): Gender Economics 224637, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    confirmation bias; decision bias; politics; religion; behavioral economics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • Z1 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:apl:wpaper:20-06. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: O. Ashton Morgan (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deappus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.