Show simple item record

Files in this item

Cover for Debiasing and the Abortion Debate: An Analysis of Integrative Complexity
dc.contributor.advisorNoel, Hans C
dc.creator
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-30T13:19:14Z
dc.date.available2020-06-30T13:19:14Z
dc.date.created2020
dc.date.issued
dc.date.submitted01/01/2020
dc.identifier.uri
dc.descriptionM.A.
dc.description.abstractResearch 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.
dc.formatPDF
dc.format.extent74 leaves
dc.languageen
dc.publisherGeorgetown University
dc.sourceGeorgetown University-Graduate School of Arts & Sciences
dc.sourceConflict Resolution
dc.subjectAbortion
dc.subjectAffective Polarization
dc.subjectDebiasing
dc.subjectIntegrative Complexity
dc.subject.lcshPolitical Science
dc.subject.lcshCognitive psychology
dc.subject.otherPolitical science
dc.subject.otherCognitive psychology
dc.titleDebiasing and the Abortion Debate: An Analysis of Integrative Complexity
dc.typethesis


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record