否定論者と戦うときに Again

4年前のWashington Postの記事がとても面白いので取り上げてみる。

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently issued a flier to combat myths about the flu vaccine. It recited various commonly held views and labeled them either "true" or "false." Among those identified as false were statements such as "The side effects are worse than the flu" and "Only older people need flu vaccine."

When University of Michigan social psychologist Norbert Schwarz had volunteers read the CDC flier, however, he found that within 30 minutes, older people misremembered 28 percent of the false statements as true. Three days later, they remembered 40 percent of the myths as factual.

Younger people did better at first, but three days later they made as many errors as older people did after 30 minutes. Most troubling was that people of all ages now felt that the source of their false beliefs was the respected CDC.


University of Michiganの社会心理学者Norbert Schwarzは被験者にこのCDCのビラを読ませたが、30分後には、高年齢の人々は「誤り」のうち28%を「正しい」と記憶していた。3日後には、40%の俗説を事実だと記憶していた。


[Shankar Vedantam: "Flu vaccine Facts mythes--Persistence of Myths Could Alter Public Policy Approach" (2007/09/04) on Washington Post]
  • 与えられた情報:「CDCは言っている『副作用はインフルエンザよりも悪い』は『誤りだ』と」
  • 記憶に残った事:「CDCは言っている『副作用はインフルエンザよりも悪い』と」

という傾向があることを確認したNorbert Schwarzの研究から記事は始まる。

The research is painting a broad new understanding of how the mind works. Contrary to the conventional notion that people absorb information in a deliberate manner, the studies show that the brain uses subconscious "rules of thumb" that can bias it into thinking that false information is true. Clever manipulators can take advantage of this tendency.

The experiments also highlight the difference between asking people whether they still believe a falsehood immediately after giving them the correct information, and asking them a few days later. Long-term memories matter most in public health campaigns or political ones, and they are the most susceptible to the bias of thinking that well-recalled false information is true.

The experiments do not show that denials are completely useless; if that were true, everyone would believe the myths. But the mind's bias does affect many people, especially those who want to believe the myth for their own reasons, or those who are only peripherally interested and are less likely to invest the time and effort needed to firmly grasp the facts.

このNorbert Schwarzの研究は心の働きについての新たな理解を示して見せている。「人々は意図的に情報を吸収するのだ」という従来の考えと違って、この研究は「脳は、誤った情報を正しいと考えるようにバイアスをかける意識下のルールを使っている」ことを示している。賢い情報操作に、この傾向を利用できる。



The research also highlights the disturbing reality that once an idea has been implanted in people's minds, it can be difficult to dislodge. Denials inherently require repeating the bad information, which may be one reason they can paradoxically reinforce it.


a new experiment by Kimberlee Weaver at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and others shows that hearing the same thing over and over again from one source can have the same effect as hearing that thing from many different people -- the brain gets tricked into thinking it has heard a piece of information from multiple, independent sources, even when it has not. Weaver's study was published this year in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

The experiments by Weaver, Schwarz and others illustrate another basic property of the mind -- it is not good at remembering when and where a person first learned something. People are not good at keeping track of which information came from credible sources and which came from less trustworthy ones, or even remembering that some information came from the same untrustworthy source over and over again. Even if a person recognizes which sources are credible and which are not, repeated assertions and denials can have the effect of making the information more accessible in memory and thereby making it feel true, said Schwarz.

Virginia Polytechnic InstituteのKimberlee Weaverたちの新たな実験で、「同じ情報源から繰り返し同じことを聞かされる」のと「多くの人々から同じことを聞かされる」のと同じ効果をもたらすことを示した。すなわち、実際にはそうではないのに、複数の独立した情報源から情報を得たと脳が考えてしまう。Weaverの研究は今年(2007年)、Journal of Personality and Social Psychologyに掲載された。

Experiments by Ruth Mayo, a cognitive social psychologist at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, also found that for a substantial chunk of people, the "negation tag" of a denial falls off with time. Mayo's findings were published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology in 2004.

"If someone says, 'I did not harass her,' I associate the idea of harassment with this person," said Mayo, explaining why people who are accused of something but are later proved innocent find their reputations remain tarnished. "Even if he is innocent, this is what is activated when I hear this person's name again. ....

Mayo found that rather than deny a false claim, it is better to make a completely new assertion that makes no reference to the original myth. Rather than say, as Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) recently did during a marathon congressional debate, that "Saddam Hussein did not attack the United States; Osama bin Laden did," Mayo said it would be better to say something like, "Osama bin Laden was the only person responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks" -- and not mention Hussein at all.

エルサレムのHebew Universityの認知社会心理学者Ruth Mayoの実験でも「多く人々が、否定情報の『否定タグ』が時間とともに欠落させてしまうこと」が示された。Mayoの発見は2004年に Journal of Experimental Social Psychologyに掲載された。


Mayoは「誤った主張を否定するより、もとの誤った主張に触れずに、まったく別の新しい主張をした方が良い」ことを発見した。近頃、連邦上院議員Mary Landrieu(民主党)は長時間の連邦議会の議論において「サダムフセインが米国を攻撃したのではない。やったのはオサマ・ビン・ラディン」だと述べたが、フセインに言及せずに「オサマ・ビン・ラディンのみが9..11の攻撃の元凶である」と述べたほうが良いとMayoは言う。
  • 与えられた情報:「サダム・フセインは米国を攻撃していない。オサマ・ビン・ラディンが攻撃した」
  • 記憶に残った事:「サダム・フセインは米国を・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・攻撃した」

  • 与えられた情報:「オサマ・ビン・ラディンが9.11の攻撃の元凶である」
  • 記憶に残った事:「オサマ・ビン・ラディンが9.11の攻撃の元凶である」

So is silence the best way to deal with myths? Unfortunately, the answer to that question also seems to be no.

Another recent study found that when accusations or assertions are met with silence, they are more likely to feel true, said Peter Kim, an organizational psychologist at the University of Southern California. He published his study in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

それでは俗説に沈黙するのが最善の方法か? 残念ながら、それに対する答えはノーだろう。

「別の最近の研究で、告発あるいは主張に対して、誰もが沈黙した場合、その告発あるいは主張は正しいを受け取られる可能性が高まることが明らかになった」と、University of Southern Californiaの組織心理学者Peter Kimは言う。彼はその研究をJournal of Applied Psychologyに掲載した。


posted by Kumicit at 2011/01/06 01:18 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(1) | Skeptic | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする



コメント: [必須入力]


Excerpt: ひとになにか説明するときに、間違って覚えられてしまうパターンというものがあるそうです。 「忘却からの帰還: 否定論者と戦うときに Again」 http://transact.seesaa.net/..
Weblog: toruotの日記
Tracked: 2011-01-08 00:53