Georgetown University LogoGeorgetown University Library LogoDigitalGeorgetown Home
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   DigitalGeorgetown Home
    • Georgetown University Institutional Repository
    • Georgetown College
    • Department of Government
    • Graduate Theses and Dissertations
    • Program of Conflict Resolution
    • View Item
    •   DigitalGeorgetown Home
    • Georgetown University Institutional Repository
    • Georgetown College
    • Department of Government
    • Graduate Theses and Dissertations
    • Program of Conflict Resolution
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Debiasing and the Abortion Debate: An Analysis of Integrative Complexity

    Cover for Debiasing and the Abortion Debate: An Analysis of Integrative Complexity
    View/Open
    View/Open: Bulger_georgetown_0076M_14671.pdf (531kB) Bookview

    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/10822/1059452
    Date Published
    2020
    Subject
    Abortion; Affective Polarization; Debiasing; Integrative Complexity; Political Science; Cognitive psychology; Political science; Cognitive psychology;
    Type
    thesis
    Publisher
    Georgetown University
    Extent
    74 leaves
    Collections
    • Program of Conflict Resolution
    Metadata
    Show full item record

    Related items

    Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.

    • Thumbnail

      The Sham Surgery Debate and the Moral Complexity of Risk- Benefit Analysis 

      Kim, Scott Y.H. (2003-09)
    Related Items in Google Scholar

    Georgetown University Seal
    ©2009 - 2022 Georgetown University Library
    37th & O Streets NW
    Washington DC 20057-1174
    202.687.7385
    digitalscholarship@georgetown.edu
    Accessibility
     

     

    Browse

    All of DigitalGeorgetownCommunities & CollectionsCreatorsTitlesBy Creation DateThis CollectionCreatorsTitlesBy Creation Date

    My Account

    Login

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics

    Georgetown University Seal
    ©2009 - 2022 Georgetown University Library
    37th & O Streets NW
    Washington DC 20057-1174
    202.687.7385
    digitalscholarship@georgetown.edu
    Accessibility