Misinformation and the Misinformation and the 'War on Terror’ 'War on Terror’ When Memory Turns Fiction into Fact When Memory Turns Fiction into Fact Stephan Lewandowsky [email protected] For slides: http://www.cogsciwa.com
Dec 24, 2015
Misinformation and the Misinformation and the 'War on Terror’ 'War on Terror’
When Memory Turns Fiction into FactWhen Memory Turns Fiction into Fact
Stephan Lewandowsky
For slides: http://www.cogsciwa.com
A Cognitive Scientist’s ViewA Cognitive Scientist’s Viewon Globalisationon Globalisation
Focus on information relating to Focus on information relating to ‘War on Terror’‘War on Terror’
False memories for “real” events.False memories for “real” events.Memory and judgment.Memory and judgment.Updating and correcting memory.Updating and correcting memory.
How Do People Process How Do People Process Information?Information?
Remember?Remember?
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”
- U.S. Vice-President Cheney, 2002
“We know that [Saddam’s] Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade …. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.”
- George Bush, 2002
WMD’s? False Memories WMD’s? False Memories And The Invasion Of IraqAnd The Invasion Of Iraq
WMD’s …. not
WMD’s …. not
WMD’s …. not
WMD’s …. not
WMDs! ?
12 April 2003: 12 April 2003: Suspected chemical warhead Suspected chemical warhead found in Kirkukfound in Kirkuk
Weapons experts were called Saturday to an occupied northern Iraqi air base in Kirkuk to determine if a warhead discovered there is laden with a chemical agent.
13 April 2003: 13 April 2003: Prelim nerve warhead test Prelim nerve warhead test negativenegative
A second set of preliminary chemical tests conducted Saturday on a warhead discovered at an occupied northern Iraqi airbase in Kirkuk found no trace of chemical weaponry..
WMD’s!WMD’s!(Kull, Ramsay, & Lewis, 2003)(Kull, Ramsay, & Lewis, 2003)
Repeated polling in the U.S. by Program on International Policy Attitudes [PIPA].
Nearly 9,000 respondents.January – September 2003.Critical question:
““Do you believe clear evidence of Do you believe clear evidence of WMD’s has been found in Iraq or not?WMD’s has been found in Iraq or not?””
Memory And Belief For Memory And Belief For WMD’s in U.S. in 2003WMD’s in U.S. in 2003
0102030405060708090
100
Pe
rce
nt
of
res
po
nd
en
ts
Mar-03 Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03
YesNo
Memory And Belief For Memory And Belief For WMD’s in U.S. in 2004WMD’s in U.S. in 2004
By 2006: By 2006: Reduced to 23%Reduced to 23%
Lewandowsky et al. (2005):Lewandowsky et al. (2005):International ComparisonInternational Comparison
At any time since the beginning of the war, have the allied
(Coalition) forces discovered weapons of mass destruction
(i.e., chemical or biological agents) in Iraq?
00 11 22 33 44 definitely not unsure definitely yes
Australia Germany U.S.
.97 .50 1.68
30% 22 14 19 1668% 21 6 3 2
WMD’s Live On …WMD’s Live On …(May 2007, Unpublished Data)(May 2007, Unpublished Data)
U.S. (N = 305): 2.31 (2.17-2.45)Australia (N = 150): 1.94 (1.72-2.16)
At any time since the beginning of the war, have the allied
(Coalition) forces discovered weapons of mass destruction
(i.e., chemical or biological agents) in Iraq?
00 11 22 33 44 definitely not unsure definitely yes
Conclusion I:Conclusion I:Memory Can Be FallibleMemory Can Be Fallible
False memories are readily created for events False memories are readily created for events that never happened but are hinted at.that never happened but are hinted at.
Memory is not a tape recorder. Memory is not a tape recorder. But not everybody is susceptible to false But not everybody is susceptible to false
memories and not everything will be memories and not everything will be misremembered.misremembered.
More on that later
How Do We Judge Risks?How Do We Judge Risks?Based On Based On HeuristicsHeuristics
“Rules of thumb” that enable us to make judgments based on incomplete data.
Intuitive and efficient, but subject to biases.but subject to biases. When judging risks……people judge ease of recalling instances.
Availability Availability heuristicheuristic
Consequences Of AvailabilityConsequences Of Availability
What is the more likely cause of death? What is the more likely cause of death? Any Any accidentaccident or stroke?or stroke?
Stroke twice as likely as all accidents togetherStroke twice as likely as all accidents together
But the media report But the media report accidents, not strokesaccidents, not strokes
Consequences Of AvailabilityConsequences Of Availability
What is the more likely cause of death:A terrorist attackterrorist attack oran asteroid or cometasteroid or comet impact?
About the same (1 in 80,000 lifetime risk).
Other Consequences Of Other Consequences Of AvailabilityAvailability
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Nu
mb
er
of
Fa
talit
ies
U.S. Iraqi
ActualSurvey
Iraqi Civilian Fatalities (PIPA Survey of U.S. residents, August 2004).
March ’06: Survey: 5000
Actual: 650,000+
Misperceptions Can KillMisperceptions Can Kill
Far more extra people died needlessly in traffic accidents in the U.S. post September 11 because they avoided flying …
…. than died on the 4 hijacked planes (Gigerenzer, 2004; Sivak & Flannagan, 2004).
Misperceptions KillMisperceptions Kill
Somewhere Somewhere between 353 and between 353 and 1018 extra deaths1018 extra deaths
The U.S. Majority That The U.S. Majority That Thinks It’s A MinorityThinks It’s A Minority
(Todorov & Mondisodza, 2004)(Todorov & Mondisodza, 2004)
Which statement comes closest to your opinion? As the sole … superpower, the U.S. should …
be the preeminent world leader. The U.S. should do its fair share … with other
countries.
““ Un
ilat
eral
”U
nil
ater
al”
““ Mu
ltil
ater
al”
Mu
ltil
ater
al”
The U.S. Majority That The U.S. Majority That Thinks It’s A MinorityThinks It’s A Minority
(Todorov & Mondisodza, 2004)(Todorov & Mondisodza, 2004)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
Re
sp
on
de
nts
1996 2000 2002 2003
UnilateralMultilateral
The majority of U.S. respondentsThe majority of U.S. respondentsfavoured (in February 2003) a favoured (in February 2003) a multilateral approach to foreign policy multilateral approach to foreign policy over a unilateral approach by a over a unilateral approach by a margin > 3:1margin > 3:1
No change since 1996No change since 1996
Holds across a number of questions andHolds across a number of questions andnumerous opinion pollsnumerous opinion polls
Why?
The U.S. Majority That The U.S. Majority That Thinks It’s A MinorityThinks It’s A Minority
When asked to estimate the opinion of the population at large, the majority felt in the minority (and vice versa).
Actual opinion Estimated opinion
Unilateral
Multilateral
16%
71%71%
54%54%
49%49%
When Are Opinions When Are Opinions Misperceived? Misperceived?
(Shamir & Shamir, 1997)(Shamir & Shamir, 1997)Correlated with prominence of an issue or
an opinion in the media.Information that is more accessible raises
people’s estimates of the preponderance of those opinions.
“Unilateral” opinions have received much prominence in the U.S. media during the last few years.
Conclusion II:Conclusion II:Judgments Distorted By MemoryJudgments Distorted By Memory
People judge risks on the basis of how People judge risks on the basis of how readily they can retrieve relevant instances.readily they can retrieve relevant instances.
In consequence, events or risks that are In consequence, events or risks that are over-reported in the media tend to be over-over-reported in the media tend to be over-estimated.estimated.
People may misjudge public opinion in People may misjudge public opinion in addition to risks.addition to risks.
Can People Do Better?Can People Do Better?
We have examined the “side-effects” of information processing.
People may over-interpret, jump to conclusions, see their biases confirmed, inflate judgments.…
But what if people are explicitly told to But what if people are explicitly told to disregard things?disregard things?
Discounting Specific Events:Discounting Specific Events:“The Jury Will Disregard…”“The Jury Will Disregard…”
Fein, McCloskey, & Tomlinson (1997) (Mock) jurors do notdo not disregard inadmissible
testimony … …unlessunless they are made suspicious about
motives underlying the introduction of the (mis-) information.
Suspicion people entertain multiple multiple rival hypotheses
Discounting MisinformationDiscounting MisinformationAnd The Invasion Of IraqAnd The Invasion Of Iraq
27 March 2003: Tony Blair claims that allied POW’s were “executed” after surrendering, calls it a war crime.
28 March 2003: Substance of statement retracted by UK defense officials.
Lewandowsky et al. (2005):Lewandowsky et al. (2005): Overview Of MethodOverview Of Method
Participants in Australia (N=158), Germany (N=412), and the United States (N=302).
Questionnaire targeting specific news events Items believed to be true at the time (TT) Items presented as true but then retracted (FRFR)
(e.g., Tony Blair’s POW claim) Items that were freely invented (FF)
(but with focus on plausibility)Administered during April and May of 2003
(War “ended” on 1 May 2003).
Belief, Memory, And Belief, Memory, And RetractionRetraction
For each item:For each item:Heard or read this statement?
0 1 2 3 4 definitely not unsure if definitely heard before heard before heard before
Statement true or false?0 1 2 3 4
definitely false unsure definitely true
After first pass, present all items a second time:After first pass, present all items a second time: never heard this item before OR
0 1 2 3 4 definitely not been retracted unsure definitely been retracted
Truth ratings for Truth ratings for TT and and FRFR items considered only if items considered only if people acknowledged hearing people acknowledged hearing of the event in the first place of the event in the first place (some control for media (some control for media exposure)exposure)
TT FF
Belief (“Item True?”)Belief (“Item True?”)
Extent of belief was a function of memory—the better Extent of belief was a function of memory—the better people remember something, the more they believe itpeople remember something, the more they believe it
Truth, Memory, And Truth, Memory, And Retraction: Retraction: FRFR Items Items
Germany Australia U.S.
Predictor p p
Memory .23 *** .14
Retraction −.42 *** −.27 **
Predictor p
Memory .23 ***
Retraction −.42 ***
Predictor p p p
Memory .23 *** .14 .69 ***
Retraction −.42 *** −.27 ** −.02
Predictor
Memory
Retraction
Truth = .23 Truth = .23 × Memory − .42 × Retraction× Memory − .42 × Retraction
More On Discounting:More On Discounting:Highly Informed People Highly Informed People Certain Of RetractionCertain Of Retraction
Only consider people whose Only consider people whose retraction rating > 2retraction rating > 2
Having thus controlled for Having thus controlled for media exposure to the extentmedia exposure to the extentpossible, let’s consider the possible, let’s consider the
FRFR truth ratings….. truth ratings…..
Only consider people with Only consider people with memory rating > 2memory rating > 2
More On Discounting:More On Discounting:Highly Informed People Highly Informed People Certain Of RetractionCertain Of Retraction
Germany Australia U.S.
Tru
th R
atin
g0
24
More On Discounting:More On Discounting:Highly Informed People Highly Informed People Certain Of RetractionCertain Of Retraction
Germany Australia U.S.
Tru
th R
atin
g0
24
More On Discounting:More On Discounting:Highly Informed People Highly Informed People Certain Of RetractionCertain Of Retraction
Germany Australia U.S.
Tru
th R
atin
g0
24
tt(61)=10.6, p < .0001(61)=10.6, p < .0001
Why?Why?
Discounting of misinformation clearly differed between samples.
Susceptibility to false memories (earlier WMD data) also differed between samples.
How might these differences be explained?“National characteristics?”Or a common underlying cognitive Or a common underlying cognitive
mechanism?mechanism?
Suspicion and DiscountingSuspicion and Discounting
We know that suspicion enables people to discount mis-information
Possible operationalization of suspicion: Extent of agreement with the proposition that Iraq was invaded to “Destroy weapons of mass destruction”
2003
Presumed Reasons Presumed Reasons For The Invasion Of IraqFor The Invasion Of Iraq
Remember effects of suspicion on jurors?Remember effects of suspicion on jurors?
Suspicion and RetractionSuspicion and Retraction
Suspicion = Suspicion = reverse code reverse code (WMD Reason)(WMD Reason)
Predict belief in FR items from memory, retraction, suspicionsuspicion (plus other variables)
Can we explain behaviour of allall samples simultaneously?
Suspicion And RetractionSuspicion And Retraction
Predictors present p
Memory .38 ***
Retraction −.07
Suspicion × RetractionSuspicion × Retraction −−.32.32 ******
Australia × Retraction
Germany × Retraction
U.S. × Retraction
rr2 2 = .31= .31 rr2 2 = .31= .31 rr2 2 = .35= .35
Model I Model II Model III
Predictors present p p
Memory .38 *** .38 ***
Retraction −.07
Suspicion × RetractionSuspicion × Retraction −−.32.32 ****** −−.35.35 ******
Australia × Retraction
Germany × Retraction
U.S. × Retraction
Predictors present p p p
Memory .38 *** .38 *** .36 ***
Retraction −.07
Suspicion × RetractionSuspicion × Retraction −−.32.32 ****** −−.35.35 ****** −−.20.20 ******
Australia × Retraction −.20 ***
Germany × Retraction −.27 ***
U.S. × Retraction −.01
Conclusions III: Misinformation Conclusions III: Misinformation And The Invasion Of IraqAnd The Invasion Of Iraq
People believe media statements. In direct proportion to their memory for them. Despite knowing that statements have been Despite knowing that statements have been
retracted.retracted.…. unless people are suspicious about are suspicious about
motives surrounding the events in question.motives surrounding the events in question.But suspicion does not mean that true
statements are also dismissed (Suspicion ≠ Cynicism).
ConclusionConclusion
If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
−Descartes, Principles of Philosophy, 1644
For slides: http://www.cogsciwa.com