然而，相當(dāng)多的人仍堅持相信那些錯誤信息，例如，巴拉克奧巴馬是一個穆斯林，盡管沒有證據(jù)??來支持這種說法。再比如說，在美國醫(yī)療保健改革的辯論中，“死亡小組”有權(quán)拒絕病人和老人利益的觀念深深扎根，并在某種意識形態(tài)群體之間因為阻力相對較小而增長。
為什么這種虛假信息和誤解會出現(xiàn)呢？還能糾正過來嗎？根據(jù)最近的一份報告，問題的第二部分的前景是很不樂觀的。
The report, titled When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions, is based on four experiments designed to test whether false or unsubstantiated beliefs about politics can be corrected. Participants in the experiments read mock news articles about politically charged issues like stem cell research, tax cuts, and the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. Each article contained content that could be misleading or deceptive. For a random set of participants, however, the articles also contained a factual correction of the misleading content at a later point in the article.Participants’ reactions to what they read were correlated with their ideological beliefs.
這篇報告題為 矯正失?。撼掷m(xù)的政治誤解。報告基于四個實驗，這些實驗旨在測試是否可以糾正有關(guān)政治的那些錯誤或無事實根據(jù)的信念。實驗的參與者閱讀了關(guān)于帶有政治色彩的事件的模擬新聞，像干細(xì)胞研究，減稅，伊拉克的大規(guī)模殺傷性武器（簡寫為WMDs）的存在。每篇文章中都包含了可能是誤導(dǎo)性或欺騙性的內(nèi)容。然而，對于任意一組參與者，這些文章后面的部分也包含了對誤導(dǎo)性內(nèi)容的事實矯正。參與者對他們讀到的信息作何反應(yīng)是與他們自己的思想信念緊密聯(lián)系的。
Here’s one of the major findings, as stated by the report’s authors:
以下是該報告的作者們得出的主要結(jié)果之一：
In each of the four experiments, which were conducted in fall 2005 and spring 2006, ideological subgroups failed to update their beliefs when presented with corrective information that runs counter to their predispositions. Indeed, in several cases, we find that corrections actually strengthened misperceptions among the most strongly committed subjects.
這四個實驗是2005年秋天和2006年春天進(jìn)行的，在其中每一個試驗中，當(dāng)意識形態(tài)的小群體讀到與前面讀到的信息相反的糾正信息時，未能及時修正自己的觀點。事實上，在一些例子中，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)糾正信息實際上加強(qiáng)了對于最真實的主題的誤解For example, participants in one of the experiments were given a mock article that contained a statement George W. Bush actually made: “There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks, and in the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take.” For a random subset of participants, the article also contained corrective information from the official report that established there were no WMD stock piles or any evidence of production in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion.
Liberal and moderate participants who received the corrective information were less likely than their counterparts who did not receive this information to believe there were WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion. The impact on conservative participants, however, was just the opposite: the corrective information actuallystrengthened theirview that there were WMDs.
例如，其中一個實驗的參與者讀的虛擬文章包含了喬治W布什真正做過的一篇演講：“有這樣一種危險，一個真正的危險，那就是薩達(dá)姆侯賽因會向恐怖分子的網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播武器，原料或者信息，而且在911事件以后，我們是冒不起這個險的。”對于任意一組參與者來說，這篇文章也包含了來自官方報告的糾正信息，指出在美國入侵伊拉克之前并無證據(jù)證明伊拉克大量存儲或生產(chǎn)大規(guī)模殺傷性武器。
比起那些接收到矯正信息的寬容溫和的參與者，未接收到矯正信息的實驗參與者更容易相信在美國入侵前伊拉克擁有大規(guī)模殺傷性武器。然而對于那些保守的參與者來說恰恰相反：矯正信息實際上加強(qiáng)了他們認(rèn)為伊拉克有大規(guī)模殺傷性武器的這種想法。
Liberals have little reason to be smug, however. In a different round of experiments, participants were asked to read an article with potentially misleading information about stem cell research and were then asked about their level of agreement with the statement “President Bush has banned stem cell research in the United States.” Again, some participants received a version of the article that contained clarifying information – namely, that Bush’s policies limited only government funded stem cell research, not privately funded research.
Conservative and moderate readers who received the corrective information were less likely to agree with the statement about a ban on research than their counterparts who did not receive this information. But liberal readers were significantly less likely to be impacted by the corrective information – they stuck to their belief that Bush had banned all stem cell research.
然而自由派沒什么理由沾沾自喜。在不同的一輪實驗中，研究者會要求參與者讀一篇關(guān)于干細(xì)胞研究的文章，文章中包含了潛在的誤導(dǎo)性信息，然后詢問他們對于“布什總統(tǒng)已下令禁止在美國進(jìn)行干細(xì)胞研究”這個聲明的相信程度。同樣的，參與者會收到一個含有澄清信息的文章版本，指出布什的政策只是限制政府資助的干細(xì)胞研究，而不是限制個人投資的研究。
對于禁止研究的這項錯誤聲明，比起那些收到糾正信息的保守和溫和的讀者，沒有收到糾正信息的讀者更容易相信。但自由派讀者更加不太可能受到糾正信息的影響 - 他們堅持自己“布什已經(jīng)禁止所有的干細(xì)胞研究”這個信念。
So, how do you change beliefs that are deeply held but factually incorrect? The reports authors’ reference other studies suggesting that, over time, bombarding people with a “sufficient”amount of clear, correct information can work. But I find it hard to place much faith in that approach given how fragmented our information channels have become. We no longer live in a world with three major news channels and one or two local newspapers to which everyone in a community subscribes. Instead, we tend to pick and choose among a wide variety of information sources that support what we already believe.
所以，你怎么去改變那些根深蒂固卻與事實不符的信念呢？報告的作者引用的其他研究表明，隨著時間的推移，大力宣傳“足夠”多的清楚，正確的信息應(yīng)該能起作用。不過，考慮到現(xiàn)在我們的信息通道已經(jīng)變得相當(dāng)分散，我對這種做法沒有多少信心。我們不再生活在一個只有三大新聞頻道和一或兩個當(dāng)?shù)孛總€人都會訂購的地方報紙的世界里了。相反，我們傾向于選擇多種信息來源來支持我們已經(jīng)相信的東西。
Game environments – the subject of my previous two posts (here and here)– may, in fact, be among the better choices for bringing together people of diverse beliefs and helping them form a common, accurate understanding of major issues. More fundamentally, we need to place more emphasize than ever ondeveloping and practicing good learning habits – like critical thinking and reflection –that prevent misinformation from making inroads in the first place. Asthe report suggests, once the truth gets twisted, straightening it back out isno easy matter.
游戲環(huán)境-也就是我以前兩份工作的主題（ 這里和這里 ）-事實上，可能是一個更好的選擇，它可以團(tuán)結(jié)不同信仰的人并幫助他們形成對重大問題的統(tǒng)一準(zhǔn)確的理解。更根本的是，我們需要比以往更加強(qiáng)調(diào)培養(yǎng)和鍛煉良好的學(xué)習(xí)習(xí)慣 -比如批判性思維和反思-進(jìn)軍擺在首位，以此來首先防止誤傳。正如報告指出的，一旦真相被扭曲，想要將它校正就不容易了。
聯(lián)系客服
