« Family of Six Killed in Iraq | Main | My Mind is Mush »
October 22, 2004
Bush Supporters And The Phenomenon of Cognitive Dissonance
An extremely interesting, and somewhat unusual, poll was released today by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. In the midst of a deluge of political polls which try to determine the number of supporters for each candidate, this poll explores the beliefs and motivations of each candidate's supporters, and in doing so reveals some amazing insights into the nature of cognitive thought and learning.
Possibly the most intriguing finding established by the PIPA poll is that even after the release of the "Duelfer Report" to Congress establishing that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.
How can we explain such positions, when even Mr. Bush himself has said "Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there"? How can Bush advocates still hold this position even after Cheney said in a widely reported address to supporters in Miami, "The headlines all say 'No weapons of mass destruction stockpiled in Baghdad.' We already knew that." The answer, of course, is a phenomenon already well-known to psychologists and cognitive learning researchers, the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them.
Dr. Leon Festinger, a pioneer in contemporary social psychology and communication theory, introduced the concept of cognitive dissonance in his 1957 book "Theory of Cognitive Dissonance." H. Gerard and E. Jones expanded upon Festinger's work with the publication of their 1967 work "Foundations of Social Psychology," in which they state "Inconsistency among related beliefs . . .produces motivation to do whatever is easiest in order to regain cognitive consistency or consonance among beliefs."
Festinger's seminal example of the effect of cognitive dissonance, and in fact the episode that inspired his exploration of the theory, revolved around an observation study of the members of a cult who believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood. Festinger particularly focused on the effect of this belief on the members of the cult, especially the extremely dedicated ones who had given up their entire worldly possessions to follow their belief, when the flood failed to materialize. A rational person would expect that the members would recognize the fallacy of their belief, and indeed Festinger found that the "fringe" members of the cult dealt with the failure of prophecy by essentially "chalking it up to experience." However, the committed members of the cult were much more likely to rationalize and re-interpret events in the context of their belief, for example by believing it was the faithfulness of the cult members which spared the earth from flood.
One can easily extend these observations to the present-day situation in this country, where we find ourselves facing a stark dichotomy between reason and faith. A large majority of Bush supporters support him because they believe that his faith is the same as their faith. Further, a majority of Americans desperately want to believe in the rightness of their government to lead and protect them. When faced with information that directly negates these needs and beliefs, Bush supporters have no choice but to follow a path of least resistance in re-interpreting the new information to fit their world view. To do otherwise would invite a deep questioning of core values upon which they depend in order to manage their lives in a frightening and ever-changing world. Indeed, if that path were followed to its extreme end, they could well end up as Existentialists, concluding that there is no point in life but to die and neither faith nor reason matter.
Such are the days in which we find ourselves. I think this viewpoint makes the outcome of this election even more interesting. On November 3 will we awake to find the earth covered by flood? Or will the flood be averted?
Posted by bcoffee at October 22, 2004 09:58 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.icantthink.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/59
Comments
"Further, a majority of Americans desperately want to believe in the rightness of their government to lead and protect them. When faced with information that directly negates these needs and beliefs, Bush supporters have no choice but to follow a path of least resistance in re-interpreting the new information to fit their world view. To do otherwise would invite a deep questioning of core values upon which they depend in order to manage their lives in a frightening and ever-changing world."
Amazing article. The more obscure and convoluted the subject, the more profound it must be. What is it going to take to make the American people understand... "The Emperor Has No Clothes"?
Reason is a faculty of the mind, and its use is basic to human existence. We cannot function in life without it. It is what we use to evaluate whether something is right or wrong, good or bad, safe or unsafe, etc. Although reason can only get us so far, we cannot get to our destination without it. To believe that we are to have faith and not reason is to have a theology of ignorance.
Posted by: JT Frog at October 23, 2004 10:10 AM
The faith I have in our President and our government is not based on
fiction. In the case of WMD's, I clearly see what everyone else has seen on
the news. I know they have not found any WMD's; that is common knowledge by
now. What most anti-war supporters fail to realize is that Saddam Hussein had
the abilities to make weapons of mass destruction. That is evident in what he did
to his own people with biological WMD's. He showed the world his desire to rule
at any cost to human life. Do you really think, Saddam if given the ability
would not have been giddy at the opportunity to use WMD against us or any of
our allies, including Israel? Saddam Hussein was a known supporter of
terrorist.
The reason I support my president in this war has a lot more to do with what
I believe he did right as opposed to what I think he did wrong. Neither you
nor the media have the security clearance and availability of information
that our President does. He is given classified info concerning great
threats to our country. We don't see the whole picture.
With this information he and his cabinet have to make some very tough
choices. Is the info credible, could it be a viable threat to our country
and is it worth sending American lives to fight for?
Other questions that must come up in ANY politicians mind is how will this
be received, what if this is the wrong decision, what will this do for my
political future. In this instance maybe Bush should have been more concerned
about his reputation instead of the safety of the American people, but we have a
President that chooses to do what he believes is right for the country over
his own political welfare. Here is a web site to go to for information on
some of what was presented to him http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html.
Along with all the other information presented to him and what he knew of
the type person Saddam was, I think he made a choice to do what he thought
was in the best interest of the American people. Had he known he was looking at faulty information or that Hussein did not have WMDs, do you really think any sane President would have started a war? No, he wanted to do what was in
his power to protect us from another catastrophe on our own soil. You can
cry out that we need better security laws and what all we should be doing.
But human efforts fail and the biggest way to protect our country is to
break down the terrorist organizations and all governments that support,
condone and fund terrorism. Kerry supporters can't see that, maybe they
are the one's with a syndrome of believing every thing will be just fine if
we just talk nice to the terrorists and leave them alone.
Another point you make in your article is that Bush supporters have faith in
the President because he has the same faith we posses. It does come down to
that issue. What Bush and the Republican platform stand for match up very
well with a majority of Bush supporters core values. And any reasoning , thinking person should be able to see that.
Faith is based on the ability to reason , look at the facts, and come to a point of believing what you have reasoned out. Each human lives by faith each day. You believe you will be here tomorrow that is why you work today.Our days are filled with faith. It is a matter of just what does your reasoning mind tell you about the world around you?
Posted by: C. Burkett at October 23, 2004 07:51 PM
Main Entry: Faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust.
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
-- Merriam-Webster Dictionary
My intent in writing this piece was not to bash any particular group of people, and certainly no particular person, but to explore the reasons why people perceive things the way that they do. It seems, however, that you chose to perceive this piece as a political, if not personal, attack. And since I did not intend this to be political, I will not take the time to respond to each of your points; however, I would like to address some of them.
I do not believe that your faith, or anyone else's, is based on fiction. Neither do I believe that faith is based on fact. See the definition I cited above, particularly "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." Or if I may cite the New Testament, King James Version, John 11:25-26: "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" Jesus said nothing about reasoning through the facts, or searching for proof. Christianity is based on an act of faith in the absence of proof. And lest I offend anyone, I would like it to be known that I am not singling out Christians, only using Christianity as an example, one with which I am sure we are both familiar.
Did you take the time to actually read the Duelfer Report, or simply rely on what the media has told you about it? You don't have to read the whole thing, there is a summary of key findings at http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf . Duelfer found that Iraq had no WMD delivery systems: "The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) has uncovered no evidence Iraq retained Scud-variant missiles, and debriefings of Iraqi officials in addition to some documentation suggest that Iraq did not retain such missiles after 1991." No nukes: "Iraq Survey Group (ISG) discovered further evidence of the maturity and significance of the pre-1991 Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date." No chemical: "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991." No biological: "In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes." In short, no ability.
As for Saddam's intent, I think only a child would be foolish enough to believe that he intended to play nice. Of course he intended to subvert or get rid of the U.N. sanctions. No one is foolish enough to believe that he actually enjoyed them. But I don't think that anyone needs classified intel to come to that conclusion.
Intent without ability equals no threat. I would like to be king of the world. I fully intend to be king of the world. Unfortunately, I lack the ability. Therefore, I don't think that anyone is seriously threatened by me.
You pointed me to an article about Bush saying that Iraq sought uranium. I have no doubt that they did. I don't think Bush was lying when he said that. I think I just explained why Bush didn't need classified intel to come to that conclusion. But, once again, Iraq had no ability. Mr. Bush has an excellent ability to see and state the obvious; however, he struggles greatly with nuance. To Bush, a thing either is or it isn't; there are no shades of grey. Life would be so much simpler if there were only two colors in my box of Crayolas.
You ask if I believe that a sane President would have started a war had he known there were no WMD's or that he was looking at faulty information. There are many reasons to go to war. Can you tell me why we entered the Vietnam conflict? Neither can anyone else, really. Some vague something about stemming the tide of Communism, or possibly bailing out our French allies, or it was an effort to establish a military presence in Asia. You say that the best way to combat terrorism is to break down the terrorist organizations and all governments that support, condone and fund terrorism. I agree. Unfortunately, according to many authorities on Middle Eastern issues, both now and before we went to war, what Bush has done has destabilized the entire region and lead to an increase in terrorism, provided safe havens for terrorists where there were none, and provided a rallying cry for terrorists to use in recruiting new members to their cause.
Unfortunately, I have gone on longer than I intended and real life demands my attention, so I will sign off here. Good night.
Posted by: bcoffee at October 23, 2004 10:03 PM
I am not really taking this personally. I understand each person has their own views. Some do sound a little bit stereo-typical though.
In reference to your response on the use of John 11:25-26 as an example of no proof or reason to base faith on, may I go back to my example of the fact that you (I only assume here) believe that there will be a tomorrow. What do you base that faith on? You have to come to a reasoning understanding of the proof from the track record of the sun’s past that it will indeed rise tomorrow, but you have no proof that it will. The fact that it rose today & yesterday is not faith, that it will tomorrow is an act of faith.
My faith in Bush is not a religious experience. He is just a man. The faith I have in Bush comes from a look at things he believes in and stands for that I think are in the best interest for our country’s future. Do I have proof that he will do the best job. No, I go by faith. No more than any Kerry supporter has proof and must go on faith alone.
As for the Duelfer report, as a matter of fact, I did click your link and I skimmed over it.
My take on the PIPA poll is this, I believe a lot of people are just misinformed. They have no real clue what is happening and are not that interested. I really don’t believe a poll like that can give accurate results of someone’s belief systems. Did the poll ask if they had read the Duelfer report before they polled them? Maybe they have not heard all the information it contained and it has nothing to do with re-interpreting their world view. It has more to do with a lack of information. Maybe they have heard bits and pieces from the past and have not heard anything differently.
I asked several people today if they were aware of the Duelfer report and they were not. Does that mean they choose not to believe it? No, I think it means they are busy raising kids, working to put bread on the table and just plain not interested in all the details. Does that mean they are not interested in our country’s future or that they should not vote? Of course not, they choose the candidate that best reflects their beliefs and then place faith in him to do the right thing. Casting a vote for any candidate is an act of faith and trust in that person, with no proof if the sun is going to rise tomorrow.
Maybe I am missing your whole point here, but in comparing Bush supporter’s to the same mentality as members of a cult is somewhat demeaning. I am a Bush supporter and I am not offended. I just think it shows a lack of understanding on how the other side thinks. It also sounds as if the left side believes they are more intelligent or superior to those of us on the right. Of course I know better than that!
Posted by: C.Burkett at October 24, 2004 09:31 PM
If I may, I would like to comment on faith in Mr.Bush.
You state that it takes faith to know the sun will rise tomorrow, based on the fact it rose today. Keeping to a strict definition of faith specifically "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" it makes me think "belief" may be a better word, because we do have proof, the sun did rise today.
Using the word faith referring to the president may be a correct choice. It is fact Mr. Bush has made many mistakes since taking office. The conservative mainstay "National Review" has said as much in its online endorsement of the President. The quotes "There have been mistakes along the way" and "Bush has shown evidence of being able to learn from his mistakes" are mentioned fairly early in the article. Yet Mr. Bush has stated publicly he has made no mistakes. Please see bcoffee's article 100 Facts And 1 Opinion and follow the link to item number 95.
Now for a man to say he has made no mistakes is a boast only the arrogant or stupid would make. I do not feel Mr. Bush is stupid. I feel he is very intelligent or would have never made it as far as he has. That only leaves me option number one. I for one do not subscribe to arrogance.
This is the crux of the matter. You state you have faith that the president will do what is in the best interest for our country's future. I have a belief that the president will continue to make mistakes which in turn could have a negative impact on our country's future. In my humble opinion, Iraq was one of those mistakes.
Could Mr. Bush make the right decisions for our country in his second term? Sure. I also feel Mr. Kerry could make the right decisions too. This is an act of faith on my part. I have no proof of either. But looking at Mr. Bush's track record, it is hard to have that faith if you believe he has made the mistakes that I consider he has made.
While not wanting to start an argument, I though it should be brought out why half of the people in this country have a problem with this president.
Posted by: pmcmahon at October 25, 2004 08:24 PM
Let me take a cue from bcoffee and break this down point by point. So that I might make an even clearer picture of what I think.
“You state that it takes faith to know the sun will rise tomorrow, based on the fact it rose today. Keeping to a strict definition of faith specifically "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" it makes me think "belief" may be a better word, because we do have proof, the sun did rise today”
Yes we have proof that the sun rose today, but no proof it will tomorrow. Lets use your analogy , “Mr. Bush has made many mistakes since taking office.” You say there is proof of that (which is questionable, I will address that in a minute). By faith based on the proof of today, you think he will make mistakes tomorrow. I on the other hand, have proof of many things he did right. I have faith that he will make right decisions tomorrow. Neither of us have proof of what he will do tomorrow. We could both be wrong but we have our proof from today to guide us. Just as I see the proof of Kerry’s voting record today, and I have faith he will continue to make those same mistakes tomorrow.
It doesn’t matter a whole lot to me whether I use the word faith or believe. Either will do. I was just responding to bcoffee calling me and many other Bush supporters on the use of the word. And by making an issue out of the word by pulling out the dictionary. He used the Bible to state his point. The Bible also says;
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"
16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. 18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did
Romans 10:14-18 (NIV)
That clearly says that their faith came from proof based in the Word of God. But that is a whole other debate.
“Now for a man to say he has made no mistakes is a boast only the arrogant or stupid would make.”
I watched the debates and unless my memory fails me (which is always a possibility)
I don’t remember him not admitting to some mistakes. Just not the ones everyone wants him to admit to, mainly, that he shouldn’t have gone to war. I think he should have. I understand information has come out since the beginning of the war that now shows that there were no WMD’s but at the time that information was not there. Even the anti-war peoples favorite, Kerry, supported the need to go in. He even stated that Saddam was a threat. So going back to the time he made the decision, he and a majority of the people thought it was the right decision. I don’t think it is arrogance or stupidity to stand his ground there.
There is an important interviewing skill I learned a long time ago that has served me well. When an interviewer ask you what your weakness are always turn them into a positive. Example. “My biggest weakness is taking my job home with me. I can’t seem to get a project off my mind. I am always thinking about how I can do my job better. I really need to learn how better to leave my job at the office.” Wow, it has worked for me every time. Employers love to hear that! I am very sure that happens to be a debating skill also.
Tell me this why is Kerry not giving straight forward answers? He evades the hard questions on every turn and no one seems to pick up on that. Can you really trust a guy like that?
“But looking at Mr. Bush's track record, it is hard to have that faith if you believe he has made the mistakes that I consider he has made.”
Have you seriously looked at Kerry’s past track record? And you don’t believe he is as capable, if not more so, of making a bigger mess in Iraq? We need someone who is not swayed by political pressure to get this job done. I, like everyone else, want out of there as soon as possible but I also want it completely finished so we don’t have to go back.
“While not wanting to start an argument, I though it should be brought out why half of the people in this country have a problem with this president.”
I don’t want to argue either, I just wanted to bring up the point why the other half doesn’t have a problem with our president.
Posted by: C. Burkett at October 25, 2004 11:06 PM
