Denialism and Cognitive Errors? The Social Origin of Preferences
Keywords:
denialism, behaviour, social interaction, motivated reasoningAbstract
The rejection of evidence is usually interpreted as an individual cognitive error. This cognitivist interpretation leads us to think about irrational traits of the actors. This work shows the inconsistencies of this explanatory model based on behavioral sciences and opens the possibility of sociologically interpreting the mechanism behind the rejection of evidence, motivated reasoning. Rather than a cognitive error, the actors justify their positions according to their membership in a specific social network. Through this social network, there are stories and narratives that seek conformity and consistency in social interactions. As a cognitive error, we depoliticize the problem of denialism, which prevents it from being treated in political terms.
Downloads
References
Achen, Christopher H. y Bartels, Larry M. (2017). Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Baekgaard, Martin; Christensen, Julian; Dahlmann, Casper M.; Mathiasen, Absjorn y Petersen, Niels B. J. (2019). «The Role of Evidence in Politics: Motivated Reasoning and Persuasion among». Politicians. British Journal of Political Science, 49(3): 1117-1140. doi:10.1017/S0007123417000084
Beck, Marisa; Ahmed, Rukhsana; Douglas, Heather; Driedger, S. Michelle; Gattinger, Monica; Kiss, Simon; Kuzma, Jennifer; Larkin, Patricia; O’Doherty, Kieran; Perrella, Andrea; Williams, Teshanee y Wolbring, Gregor (2023). Reasoning and Risk Governance: What Risk Scholars and Practitioners Need to Know. En: M. Gattinger (ed.). Democratizing Risk Governance (pp. 29-52). Otawa: Palgrave McMillan.
Bem, Daryl J. (1972). «Self-Perception Theory, Advances in Experimental Social». Psichology, vol. 6: 1-62. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60024-6
Billig, Michael (2009). «Discursive psychology, rhetoric and the issue of agency». Semem. Revue de sémio-linguistique des textes et discours vol. 27. doi: 10.4000/semen.8930
Ceballos, Noel (2021). El pensamiento conspiranoico. Barcelona: Arpa.
Cohen, Geoffrey L. (2003). «Party Over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs». Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5): 808-822. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808
Cole, Jeniffer C.; Gillis, Ash J.; Van der Linden, Sander; Cohen, Mark A. y Vandenbergh, Michael P. (2023). «Social Psychological Perspectives on Political Polarization: Insights and Implications for Climate Change». Perspectives on Psychological Science, 0(0). doi: 10.1177/17456916231186409
Collins, Randall (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton: PUP.
Coppock, Alexander (2022). Persuasion in parallel: how information changes minds about politics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Cramer, Katherine J. (2016). The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Dardenne, Benoit y Leyens, Jacques-Philippe (1995). «Confirmation Bias as a Social Skill». Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11): 1229-1239. doi: 10.1177/01461672952111011
Dennet, Daniel (1995). La conciencia explicada. Barcelona: Paidós.
Díaz Catalán, Celia y Cabrera-Álvarez, Pablo (2023). «La percepción social de la ciencia mejora ante los desafíos globales». En: The Conversation. Disponible en: (https://theconversation.com/la-percepcion-social-de-la-ciencia-mejora-en-espana-ante-los-desafios-globales-204395, acceso 10 de febrero 2024.
Ditto, Peter H.; Liu, Britanny S.; Clark, Cory J.; Wojcik, Sean P.; Chen, E. Erick; Grady, Rebecca H.; Celniker, Jared B. y Zinger, Joanne F. (2019). «At Least Bias Is Bipartisan: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Partisan Bias in Liberals and Conservatives». Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(2): 273-291. doi: 10.1177/1745691617746796
Dixon, Graham; Hmielowski, Jay y Ma, Yanni (2017). «Improving climate change acceptance among U.S. conservatives through value-based message targeting». Science Communication, 39(4): 520–534. doi: 10.1177/1075547017715473
Druckman, James N. y McGrath, Mary C. (2019). «The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation». Nature Clim Change, 9: 111-119. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0360-1
Dunning, David; Meyerowitz, Judith A. y Holzberg, Amy D. (1989) «Ambiguity and self-evaluation: the role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving assessments of ability» Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6):1082-1090. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1082
Eagleman, David (2013). Incógnito: las vidas secretas del cerebro. Barcelona: Anagrama.
Epley, Nicholas y Gilovich. Thomas (2016). «The Mechanics of Motivated Reasoning». Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30 (3): 133-40. doi: 10.1257/jep.30.3.133
Erisen, Cengiz; Redlawsk, David P. y Erisen, Elif (2018). «Complex Thinking as a Result of Incongruent Information Exposure». American Politics Research, 46(2): 217-245. doi: 10.1177/1532673X17725864
Fridman, Ariel; Gershon, Rachel y Gneezy, Ayelet (2021). «COVID-19 and vaccine hesitancy: A longitudinal study». PLoS ONE, 16(4): e0250123. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250123
Gattinger, Monica (ed.) (2023). Democratizing Risk Governance. Bridging Science, Expertise, Deliberation and Public Values. Otawa: Palgrave McMillan.
Gazzaniga, Michael (2012). Who is in charge? Free will and the science of the brain. UK: Little Brown.
Gillis, Ash; Vandenbergh, Michael; Raimi, Kaitlin; Maki, Alex y Wallston, Ken (2021). «Convincing conservatives: Private sector action can bolster support for climate change mitigation in the United States». Energy Research & Social Science, 73, Article 101947. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2021.101947
Goffman, Erwing (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin books.
Goffman, Erwing (1970). Internados. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu.
Goffman, Erwing (1975). Frame analysis. London: Penguin books.
Guay, Brian y Johnston, Christopher D. (2022), «Ideological Asymmetries and the Determinants of Politically Motivated Reasoning». American Journal of Political Science, 66: 285-301. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12624
Habermas, Jürgen (1999). Teoría de la acción comunicativa, vol.1. Madrid: Taurus.
Haidt, Jonathan (2012). The righteous mind. UK: Allen Lane.
Harré, Rom y Gillet, Grant (1994). The discursive mind. USA: SAGE.
Haselton, Martie G; Bryant, Gregory; Wilke, Andreas; Frederick, David; Galperin, Andrew; Frankenhuis, Willen y Moore, Tyler (2009). «Adaptive rationality: An evolutionary perspective on cognitive bias». Social Cognition, 27(5): 733-763. doi: 10.1521/soco.2009.27.5.733
Kahan, Dan M. (2013). «Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection». Judgment and Decision Making, 8 (4): 407-424. doi: 101017/S1930297500005271
Kahneman, Daniel (2011). Pensar despacio, pensar rápido. Madrid: Debate.
Keren, Gideon y Schul, Yaacov (2009). «Two Is Not Always Better Than One: A Critical Evaluation of Two-System Theories». Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(6): 533-550. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01164.x
Kunda, Ziva (1990). «The case for motivated reasoning». Psychological Bulletin, 108(3): 480-498. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
Lewandowsky, Stephan y Oberauer, Klaus (2016). «Motivated Rejection of Science». Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(4): 217-222. doi: 10.1177/0963721416654436
Martín-Criado, Enrique (2014). «Mentiras, inconsistencias y ambivalencias. Teoría de la acción y análisis de discurso». Revista Internacional de Sociología, 72(1): 115-138. doi: 10.3989/ris.2012.07.24
Matute, Helena (2019). Nuestra mente nos engaña. Barcelona: Shackleton Books.
Mercier, Hugo y Sperber, Dan (2011). «Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory». Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2): 57-74; doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10000968
Mercier, Hugo y Sperber, Dan (2017). The enigma of reason. UK: Penguin.
Moreno Muñoz, Miguel (2021). «Negacionismo y conflicto social». Gazeta de Antropología, 37(3):1-14. doi: 10.30827/Digibug.70333
Nickerson, Raymond S. (1998). «Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises». Review of General Psychology, 2(2): 175-220. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
Nisbett, Richard E. y Wilson, Timothy D. (1977). «Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes». Psychological Review, 84(3): 231-259. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231
Oreskes, Naomi y Conway, Erik (2022). «From Anti-Government to Anti-Science: Why Conservatives Have Turned Against Science». Daedalus 151 (4): 98-123. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01946
Ross, Lee y Nisbett, Richard E. (2011): The person and the situation: perspectives of social psychology. London: Pinter and Martin.
Russel Hochschild, Arlie (2016). Extraños en su propia tierra. Madrid: Capitán Swing.
Sigman, Mariano (2022). El poder de las palabras. Madrid: Debate.
Specter, Michael (2009). Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Harms the Planet and Threatens Our Lives. New York: Penguin Press.
Storr, Will (2022). La ciencia de contar historias. Madrid: Capitán Swing.
Sunstein, Cass y Thaler, Richard (2003). «Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron». The University of Chicago Law Review, 70 (4): 1159-1202. doi: 10.2307/1600573
Taber, Charles S. y Lodge, Milton (2016). «The Illusion of Choice in Democratic Politics: The Unconscious Impact of Motivated Political Reasoning». Political Psychology, 37: 61-85. doi:10.1111/pops.12321
Todd, Peter M. y Gigerenzer, Gerd (eds.) (2012). Ecological rationality: Intelligence in the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Permite Compartir — copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato, Adaptar — remezclar, transformar y construir a partir del material para cualquier propósito, incluso comercialmente.
