misinformation and the 'war on terror’ when memory turns fiction into fact stephan...

Misinformation and the Misinformation and the 'War on Terror’ 'War on Terror’

When Memory Turns Fiction into FactWhen Memory Turns Fiction into Fact

Stephan Lewandowsky

lewan@psy.uwa.edu.au

For slides: http://www.cogsciwa.com

A Cognitive Scientist’s ViewA Cognitive Scientist’s Viewon Globalisationon Globalisation

Focus on information relating to Focus on information relating to ‘War on Terror’‘War on Terror’

False memories for “real” events.False memories for “real” events.Memory and judgment.Memory and judgment.Updating and correcting memory.Updating and correcting memory.

How Do People Process How Do People Process Information?Information?

Remember?Remember?

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

- U.S. Vice-President Cheney, 2002

“We know that [Saddam’s] Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade …. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.”

- George Bush, 2002

WMD’s? False Memories WMD’s? False Memories And The Invasion Of IraqAnd The Invasion Of Iraq

WMD’s …. not

WMD’s …. not

WMD’s …. not

WMD’s …. not

WMDs! ?

12 April 2003: 12 April 2003: Suspected chemical warhead Suspected chemical warhead found in Kirkukfound in Kirkuk

Weapons experts were called Saturday to an occupied northern Iraqi air base in Kirkuk to determine if a warhead discovered there is laden with a chemical agent.

13 April 2003: 13 April 2003: Prelim nerve warhead test Prelim nerve warhead test negativenegative

A second set of preliminary chemical tests conducted Saturday on a warhead discovered at an occupied northern Iraqi airbase in Kirkuk found no trace of chemical weaponry..

WMD’s!WMD’s!(Kull, Ramsay, & Lewis, 2003)(Kull, Ramsay, & Lewis, 2003)

Repeated polling in the U.S. by Program on International Policy Attitudes [PIPA].

Nearly 9,000 respondents.January – September 2003.Critical question:

““Do you believe clear evidence of Do you believe clear evidence of WMD’s has been found in Iraq or not?WMD’s has been found in Iraq or not?””

Memory And Belief For Memory And Belief For WMD’s in U.S. in 2003WMD’s in U.S. in 2003

0102030405060708090

100

Pe

rce

nt

of

res

po

nd

en

ts

Mar-03 Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03

YesNo

Memory And Belief For Memory And Belief For WMD’s in U.S. in 2004WMD’s in U.S. in 2004

By 2006: By 2006: Reduced to 23%Reduced to 23%

Lewandowsky et al. (2005):Lewandowsky et al. (2005):International ComparisonInternational Comparison

At any time since the beginning of the war, have the allied

(Coalition) forces discovered weapons of mass destruction

(i.e., chemical or biological agents) in Iraq?

00 11 22 33 44 definitely not unsure definitely yes

Australia Germany U.S.

.97 .50 1.68

30% 22 14 19 1668% 21 6 3 2

WMD’s Live On …WMD’s Live On …(May 2007, Unpublished Data)(May 2007, Unpublished Data)

U.S. (N = 305): 2.31 (2.17-2.45)Australia (N = 150): 1.94 (1.72-2.16)

At any time since the beginning of the war, have the allied

(Coalition) forces discovered weapons of mass destruction

(i.e., chemical or biological agents) in Iraq?

00 11 22 33 44 definitely not unsure definitely yes

Conclusion I:Conclusion I:Memory Can Be FallibleMemory Can Be Fallible

False memories are readily created for events False memories are readily created for events that never happened but are hinted at.that never happened but are hinted at.

Memory is not a tape recorder. Memory is not a tape recorder. But not everybody is susceptible to false But not everybody is susceptible to false

memories and not everything will be memories and not everything will be misremembered.misremembered.

More on that later

How Do We Judge Risks?How Do We Judge Risks?Based On Based On HeuristicsHeuristics

“Rules of thumb” that enable us to make judgments based on incomplete data.

Intuitive and efficient, but subject to biases.but subject to biases. When judging risks……people judge ease of recalling instances.

Availability Availability heuristicheuristic

Consequences Of AvailabilityConsequences Of Availability

What is the more likely cause of death? What is the more likely cause of death? Any Any accidentaccident or stroke?or stroke?

Stroke twice as likely as all accidents togetherStroke twice as likely as all accidents together

But the media report But the media report accidents, not strokesaccidents, not strokes

Consequences Of AvailabilityConsequences Of Availability

What is the more likely cause of death:A terrorist attackterrorist attack oran asteroid or cometasteroid or comet impact?

About the same (1 in 80,000 lifetime risk).

Other Consequences Of Other Consequences Of AvailabilityAvailability

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Nu

mb

er

of

Fa

talit

ies

U.S. Iraqi

ActualSurvey

Iraqi Civilian Fatalities (PIPA Survey of U.S. residents, August 2004).

March ’06: Survey: 5000

Actual: 650,000+

Misperceptions Can KillMisperceptions Can Kill

Far more extra people died needlessly in traffic accidents in the U.S. post September 11 because they avoided flying …

…. than died on the 4 hijacked planes (Gigerenzer, 2004; Sivak & Flannagan, 2004).

Misperceptions KillMisperceptions Kill

Somewhere Somewhere between 353 and between 353 and 1018 extra deaths1018 extra deaths

The U.S. Majority That The U.S. Majority That Thinks It’s A MinorityThinks It’s A Minority

(Todorov & Mondisodza, 2004)(Todorov & Mondisodza, 2004)

Which statement comes closest to your opinion? As the sole … superpower, the U.S. should …

be the preeminent world leader. The U.S. should do its fair share … with other

countries.

““ Un

ilat

eral

”U

nil

ater

al”

““ Mu

ltil

ater

al”

Mu

ltil

ater

al”

The U.S. Majority That The U.S. Majority That Thinks It’s A MinorityThinks It’s A Minority

(Todorov & Mondisodza, 2004)(Todorov & Mondisodza, 2004)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts

1996 2000 2002 2003

UnilateralMultilateral

The majority of U.S. respondentsThe majority of U.S. respondentsfavoured (in February 2003) a favoured (in February 2003) a multilateral approach to foreign policy multilateral approach to foreign policy over a unilateral approach by a over a unilateral approach by a margin > 3:1margin > 3:1

No change since 1996No change since 1996

Holds across a number of questions andHolds across a number of questions andnumerous opinion pollsnumerous opinion polls

Why?

The U.S. Majority That The U.S. Majority That Thinks It’s A MinorityThinks It’s A Minority

When asked to estimate the opinion of the population at large, the majority felt in the minority (and vice versa).

Actual opinion Estimated opinion

Unilateral

Multilateral

16%

71%71%

54%54%

49%49%

When Are Opinions When Are Opinions Misperceived? Misperceived?

(Shamir & Shamir, 1997)(Shamir & Shamir, 1997)Correlated with prominence of an issue or

an opinion in the media.Information that is more accessible raises

people’s estimates of the preponderance of those opinions.

“Unilateral” opinions have received much prominence in the U.S. media during the last few years.

Conclusion II:Conclusion II:Judgments Distorted By MemoryJudgments Distorted By Memory

People judge risks on the basis of how People judge risks on the basis of how readily they can retrieve relevant instances.readily they can retrieve relevant instances.

In consequence, events or risks that are In consequence, events or risks that are over-reported in the media tend to be over-over-reported in the media tend to be over-estimated.estimated.

People may misjudge public opinion in People may misjudge public opinion in addition to risks.addition to risks.

Can People Do Better?Can People Do Better?

We have examined the “side-effects” of information processing.

People may over-interpret, jump to conclusions, see their biases confirmed, inflate judgments.…

But what if people are explicitly told to But what if people are explicitly told to disregard things?disregard things?

Discounting Specific Events:Discounting Specific Events:“The Jury Will Disregard…”“The Jury Will Disregard…”

Fein, McCloskey, & Tomlinson (1997) (Mock) jurors do notdo not disregard inadmissible

testimony … …unlessunless they are made suspicious about

motives underlying the introduction of the (mis-) information.

Suspicion people entertain multiple multiple rival hypotheses

Discounting MisinformationDiscounting MisinformationAnd The Invasion Of IraqAnd The Invasion Of Iraq

27 March 2003: Tony Blair claims that allied POW’s were “executed” after surrendering, calls it a war crime.

28 March 2003: Substance of statement retracted by UK defense officials.

Lewandowsky et al. (2005):Lewandowsky et al. (2005): Overview Of MethodOverview Of Method

Participants in Australia (N=158), Germany (N=412), and the United States (N=302).

Questionnaire targeting specific news events Items believed to be true at the time (TT) Items presented as true but then retracted (FRFR)

(e.g., Tony Blair’s POW claim) Items that were freely invented (FF)

(but with focus on plausibility)Administered during April and May of 2003

(War “ended” on 1 May 2003).

Belief, Memory, And Belief, Memory, And RetractionRetraction

For each item:For each item:Heard or read this statement?

0 1 2 3 4 definitely not unsure if definitely heard before heard before heard before

Statement true or false?0 1 2 3 4

definitely false unsure definitely true

After first pass, present all items a second time:After first pass, present all items a second time: never heard this item before OR

0 1 2 3 4 definitely not been retracted unsure definitely been retracted

Truth ratings for Truth ratings for TT and and FRFR items considered only if items considered only if people acknowledged hearing people acknowledged hearing of the event in the first place of the event in the first place (some control for media (some control for media exposure)exposure)

TT FF

Belief (“Item True?”)Belief (“Item True?”)

Extent of belief was a function of memory—the better Extent of belief was a function of memory—the better people remember something, the more they believe itpeople remember something, the more they believe it

Truth, Memory, And Truth, Memory, And Retraction: Retraction: FRFR Items Items

Germany Australia U.S.

Predictor p p

Memory .23 *** .14

Retraction −.42 *** −.27 **

Predictor p

Memory .23 ***

Retraction −.42 ***

Predictor p p p

Memory .23 *** .14 .69 ***

Retraction −.42 *** −.27 ** −.02

Predictor

Memory

Retraction

Truth = .23 Truth = .23 × Memory − .42 × Retraction× Memory − .42 × Retraction

More On Discounting:More On Discounting:Highly Informed People Highly Informed People Certain Of RetractionCertain Of Retraction

Only consider people whose Only consider people whose retraction rating > 2retraction rating > 2

Having thus controlled for Having thus controlled for media exposure to the extentmedia exposure to the extentpossible, let’s consider the possible, let’s consider the

FRFR truth ratings….. truth ratings…..

Only consider people with Only consider people with memory rating > 2memory rating > 2

More On Discounting:More On Discounting:Highly Informed People Highly Informed People Certain Of RetractionCertain Of Retraction

Germany Australia U.S.

Tru

th R

atin

g0

24

More On Discounting:More On Discounting:Highly Informed People Highly Informed People Certain Of RetractionCertain Of Retraction

Germany Australia U.S.

Tru

th R

atin

g0

24

More On Discounting:More On Discounting:Highly Informed People Highly Informed People Certain Of RetractionCertain Of Retraction

Germany Australia U.S.

Tru

th R

atin

g0

24

tt(61)=10.6, p < .0001(61)=10.6, p < .0001

Why?Why?

Discounting of misinformation clearly differed between samples.

Susceptibility to false memories (earlier WMD data) also differed between samples.

How might these differences be explained?“National characteristics?”Or a common underlying cognitive Or a common underlying cognitive

mechanism?mechanism?

Suspicion and DiscountingSuspicion and Discounting

We know that suspicion enables people to discount mis-information

Possible operationalization of suspicion: Extent of agreement with the proposition that Iraq was invaded to “Destroy weapons of mass destruction”

2003

Presumed Reasons Presumed Reasons For The Invasion Of IraqFor The Invasion Of Iraq

Remember effects of suspicion on jurors?Remember effects of suspicion on jurors?

Suspicion and RetractionSuspicion and Retraction

Suspicion = Suspicion = reverse code reverse code (WMD Reason)(WMD Reason)

Predict belief in FR items from memory, retraction, suspicionsuspicion (plus other variables)

Can we explain behaviour of allall samples simultaneously?

Suspicion And RetractionSuspicion And Retraction

Predictors present p

Memory .38 ***

Retraction −.07

Suspicion × RetractionSuspicion × Retraction −−.32.32 ******

Australia × Retraction

Germany × Retraction

U.S. × Retraction

rr2 2 = .31= .31 rr2 2 = .31= .31 rr2 2 = .35= .35

Model I Model II Model III

Predictors present p p

Memory .38 *** .38 ***

Retraction −.07

Suspicion × RetractionSuspicion × Retraction −−.32.32 ****** −−.35.35 ******

Australia × Retraction

Germany × Retraction

U.S. × Retraction

Predictors present p p p

Memory .38 *** .38 *** .36 ***

Retraction −.07

Suspicion × RetractionSuspicion × Retraction −−.32.32 ****** −−.35.35 ****** −−.20.20 ******

Australia × Retraction −.20 ***

Germany × Retraction −.27 ***

U.S. × Retraction −.01

Conclusions III: Misinformation Conclusions III: Misinformation And The Invasion Of IraqAnd The Invasion Of Iraq

People believe media statements. In direct proportion to their memory for them. Despite knowing that statements have been Despite knowing that statements have been

retracted.retracted.…. unless people are suspicious about are suspicious about

motives surrounding the events in question.motives surrounding the events in question.But suspicion does not mean that true

statements are also dismissed (Suspicion ≠ Cynicism).

ConclusionConclusion

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.

−Descartes, Principles of Philosophy, 1644

lewan@psy.uwa.edu.au

For slides: http://www.cogsciwa.com