Debiasing and the Abortion Debate: An Analysis of Integrative Complexity
Creator
Bulger, Rachel
Advisor
Noel, Hans C
Abstract
Research has indicated that partisan polarization is growing, and while partisanship itself is not inherently destructive, unchecked polarization may debilitate the healthy functioning of the American democracy. Additional research indicates that citizens and politicians are subject to motivated reasoning, which may serve to spur further polarization. In response, the current study represents an attempt to mitigate the cognitive biases related to motivated reasoning. A between-groups, online survey experiment was performed in order to test the debiasing technique of accountability by measuring the integrative complexity of participants’ expressed opinions on abortion. The hypothesis that the intervention would cause greater integrative complexity in the treatment group in comparison to the control was found to be null. However, the difference in the mean scores of integrative complexity was significantly moderated by political knowledge. Implications of the results for future debiasing in the online context attempts are discussed.
Description
M.A.
Permanent Link
http://hdl.handle.net/10822/1059452Date Published
2020Subject
Type
Publisher
Georgetown University
Extent
74 leaves
Collections
Metadata
Show full item recordRelated items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
The Sham Surgery Debate and the Moral Complexity of Risk- Benefit Analysis
Kim, Scott Y.H. (2003-09)