Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - "the backfire effect"--us conservatism and the problem of dissonant information

roachboy · 07-23-2009, 02:49 PM

since the argument here seems to be grinding to a halt, maybe it'd be good to go back to the paper for a minute.
what the study is concerned with responses to types of statements.
it asked participants to self-identify on a political scale.
there was no way to exclude or control for contexts like information--so no way to know how much any particular respondent knew about iraq--to stay with that one.
what they were shown were fake newspaper articles, one of which contained a statement attributed to george w bush, another of which contained statements attributed to other sources which refuted the claim attributed to george w bush.
so at issue here really is the relation to types of statements based on assumptions about the speaker, refracted through the dominant media.
questions about the validity of the claims were relegated to background conditions, which is one of the features of the study that makes it problematic. but anyway.

what they basically show is that the respondents who identified as conservative were even more likely to believe the claims attributed to george w bush after reading counter-claims, attributed to other sources presumably outside the administration.

this was nothing like the results obtained for other political affiliations.

the second part of the study tried to subdivide conservatives around questions specifically about the iraq war. this part happened *after* cowboy george had been obtained a second term. the first happened during the campaign.
with that subdivision in place, there was less of a backfire effect except amongst those who claimed a strong committment in support of the war in iraq and who identified as conservative. (i could be wrong about this, it's been a couple days since i read the paper--but i think it's the case)

so the overall conclusion of the study linked this change back to contextual shifts, which the study can't and doesn't really account for.

so what you have is a curious result. self-identified conservatives in the context of the campaign around what turned out to be bush's second term (um...yeah) exhibited this backfire effect. after the campaign, with a differently defined group of conservatives, a variant on the same effect was exhibited amongst the subset that identified as having a strong committment to the iraq war.

so what is this about then?

well, it does reveal a curious phenomenon that is characteristic of how conservative forms of identity politics operate---but one which is necessarily linked to a highly polarized context (as a strong feature anyway)...this characterstic has to do with the ways in which various speakers/sources are weighted---which is an ideological effect.
what the article doesn't really account for are contextual features either during the campaign or--especially--afterward. the second is interesting because it wasn't long after cowboy george's investiture for that second go-round that the real devolution of populist conservatism as a mass political phenomenon started to really take hold.

so it may well be that the study reflects the passage from ascendancy into devolution of populist conservatism as a mass political phenomenon.
so it may well be that what the study is about is something that's tied to a historical conjuncture.
political science types like to count things and feign a degree of transcendence for the results of their experryments because they've counted things, so in the way these results are presented this possibility is downplayed.
but i don't think it should be.

at the same time, the study does speak to something that is a regularity in what remains of conservative identity politics.
strangely enough, much of the thread turned into a demonstration of this.
the reason i find it strange is that the thread is about this backfire phenomenon, so you'd think would be the last place we'd get to read a performance of exactly what the study is about particularly one that is framed as a refutation of the study's conclusions.

go figure.
it pays to read the material, i guess.

07-23-2009, 02:49 PM	#74 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	since the argument here seems to be grinding to a halt, maybe it'd be good to go back to the paper for a minute. what the study is concerned with responses to types of statements. it asked participants to self-identify on a political scale. there was no way to exclude or control for contexts like information--so no way to know how much any particular respondent knew about iraq--to stay with that one. what they were shown were fake newspaper articles, one of which contained a statement attributed to george w bush, another of which contained statements attributed to other sources which refuted the claim attributed to george w bush. so at issue here really is the relation to types of statements based on assumptions about the speaker, refracted through the dominant media. questions about the validity of the claims were relegated to background conditions, which is one of the features of the study that makes it problematic. but anyway. what they basically show is that the respondents who identified as conservative were even more likely to believe the claims attributed to george w bush after reading counter-claims, attributed to other sources presumably outside the administration. this was nothing like the results obtained for other political affiliations. the second part of the study tried to subdivide conservatives around questions specifically about the iraq war. this part happened after cowboy george had been obtained a second term. the first happened during the campaign. with that subdivision in place, there was less of a backfire effect except amongst those who claimed a strong committment in support of the war in iraq and who identified as conservative. (i could be wrong about this, it's been a couple days since i read the paper--but i think it's the case) so the overall conclusion of the study linked this change back to contextual shifts, which the study can't and doesn't really account for. so what you have is a curious result. self-identified conservatives in the context of the campaign around what turned out to be bush's second term (um...yeah) exhibited this backfire effect. after the campaign, with a differently defined group of conservatives, a variant on the same effect was exhibited amongst the subset that identified as having a strong committment to the iraq war. so what is this about then? well, it does reveal a curious phenomenon that is characteristic of how conservative forms of identity politics operate---but one which is necessarily linked to a highly polarized context (as a strong feature anyway)...this characterstic has to do with the ways in which various speakers/sources are weighted---which is an ideological effect. what the article doesn't really account for are contextual features either during the campaign or--especially--afterward. the second is interesting because it wasn't long after cowboy george's investiture for that second go-round that the real devolution of populist conservatism as a mass political phenomenon started to really take hold. so it may well be that the study reflects the passage from ascendancy into devolution of populist conservatism as a mass political phenomenon. so it may well be that what the study is about is something that's tied to a historical conjuncture. political science types like to count things and feign a degree of transcendence for the results of their experryments because they've counted things, so in the way these results are presented this possibility is downplayed. but i don't think it should be. at the same time, the study does speak to something that is a regularity in what remains of conservative identity politics. strangely enough, much of the thread turned into a demonstration of this. the reason i find it strange is that the thread is about this backfire phenomenon, so you'd think would be the last place we'd get to read a performance of exactly what the study is about particularly one that is framed as a refutation of the study's conclusions. go figure. it pays to read the material, i guess. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite