It’s not easy….
Bridging the cultural and political divides which seem to be growing ever-wider by the day is difficult enough. When we’re “sabotaging” our efforts to process additional and potentially beneficial information by inherent pre-dispositions to dismiss it based on a need or desire to remain true to the values and beliefs we already hold, we may not always be serving our best interests.
Individuals bear cultural predisposition toward risk—a tendency (founded on identity-protective cognition) to view some risk claims more congenial than others on the basis of latent characteristics indicated by values they share with others. This predisposition not only endows culturally diverse individuals with opposing ‘prior’ beliefs about risk. It also decisively regulates their experience with information about the truth or falsity of those beliefs. People with opposing predispositions seek out support for their competing views through opposingly biased forms of information search. What’s more, they construe or assimilate information, whatever its provenance, in opposing ways that reinforce the risk perceptions they are predisposed to form. As a result, individuals end up in a state of cultural conflict—not over values, but over facts—that the mere accumulation of empirical data cannot be expected readily to dispel.
A bit heavy with academic jargon, but the message is fairly easy to appreciate. We disregard the possibilities or likelihoods of adverse consequences arising from policies or behaviors or beliefs because we are automatically accepting or ignoring information which is or is not consistent with the values and beliefs already held. An added moment or two to consider might lead us to better choices and outcomes, but we’re not giving ourselves that opportunity.
We all do this for a variety of reasons and for a variety of issues to help us navigate our days without constantly stopping for re-evaluations. Understandable but not always the best tactic. This psychological or emotional “self-defense” process may be most advantageous in those initial moments when we are evaluating new information in terms of its potential value or harm, but our failure to pause in the automatic processing of the inconsistent data can be the far worse decision long-term.
Climate change is one glaring example of a significant issue with the potential for unimaginable harm, with a huge body of factual evidence to support its contentions, too often and too easily dismissed by too many for objective reasons which strike others as nearly insane.
That’s just one issue. Peak oil, inequality, gay marriage … the list of other topics treated in similar fashion is growing. It might not be nearly so much a concern for those who are considering the evidence were it not for the fact that by ignoring the data in favor of preserving ideological or emotional consistency, deniers put all of us in the way of greater harm.
A possible option to help others navigate their way through the defenses offered is suggested here:
With self-affirmation, individuals experience a stimulus—perhaps being told they scored high on a test, or being required to write a short essay on their best attributes—that makes a worthy trait of theirs salient to them. This affirming experience creates a boost in a person’s self-worth and self-esteem that essentially buffers the sense of threat he or she would otherwise experience while confronted with information that challenges beliefs dominant within an important reference group. As a result, individuals react in a more open-minded way to potentially identity-threatening information, and often experience a durable change in their prior beliefs.
Cultural-identity affirmation hypothesizes that you can get the same effect when you communicate information about risk in a way that affirms rather than threatens their cultural worldview. [Kahan - link above]
It may not be a workable solution all the time, of course. But for those of us who care deeply about the consequences of what fact-based studies are telling us are likely to occur if we continue to ignore climate change et al, recognizing different approaches which might reach some who are otherwise resisting the information can only help. Opening one or two doors is a better option than doing more of the same which keeps all the doors locked tight.
The future matters enough that any and every opportunity to find ways through the emotional and psychological clutter is one none of us can afford to pass up.
Top Comments Submission Made Easy
|