---
title: "[WEEK 5 TITLE]"
subtitle: "[WEEK 5 SUBTITLE]"
date: last-modified
date-format: "[Updated ]MMM D, YYYY"
format: 
  revealjs:
    theme: brownslides.scss
    logo: images/pols1140_hex.png
    footer: "[COURSE CODE]"
    multiplex: false
    transition: fade
    slide-number: c
    incremental: true
    center: false
    menu: true
    scrollable: true
    highlight-style: github
    progress: true
    code-overflow: wrap
    chalkboard: true
    # include-after-body: title-slide.html
    title-slide-attributes:
      align: left
      data-background-image: images/pols1140_hex.png
      data-background-position: 90% 50%
      data-background-size: 40%
filters:
  - openlinksinnewpage
execute: 
  eval: true
  echo: true
  warning: false
  message: false
  cache: true
---

```{r}
#| label: init
#| echo: false
#| results: hide
#| warning: false 
#| message: false

library(tidyverse)
library(labelled)
library(haven)
library(DeclareDesign)
library(easystats)
library(texreg)

```

# {{< fa map-location>}} Thursday {.inverse}

## Plan for today

-   Finish up discussion of political misinformation

-   Political Cognition @Zaller1992-mz

-   @Zaller1992-oq Receive-Accept-Sample

-   Begin @Lodge2013-kq

## Announcements

-   Reading Reflections:

    -   1st by Feb 24
    -   2nd by March 19
    -   3rd by Apr 30 (Optional, replace lowest grade)

-   First Term Paper: March 10

-   Revisions to group projects

## Do you believe in Miracles?

```{r}
#| label: fig1
#| echo: false

library(tidyverse)

df <- haven::read_spss("surveys/wk05.sav")

df %>% 
  mutate(
    Olympics = fct_rev(fct_inorder(as_factor(olympics))),
    `Favorite Event` = fav_event
  ) %>% 
  filter(share == 1) -> class_df


# df %>%
#   mutate(
#     # Turn numeric values into factor labels 
#     Reincarnation = forcats::as_factor(reincarnation),
#     # Order factor in decreasing frequency of levels
#     Reincarnation = forcats::fct_infreq(Reincarnation),
#     # Reverse order so levels are increasing in frequency
#     Reincarnation = forcats::fct_rev(Reincarnation),
#     # Rename explanations
#     Why = reincarnation_why
#   ) -> df
# 
# df %>% # Data
#   # Aesthetics
#   ggplot(aes(x = Reincarnation, 
#              fill = Reincarnation))+
#   # Geometry
#   geom_bar(stat = "count")+ # Statistic
#   ## Include levels of Reincarnation w/ no values
#   scale_x_discrete(drop=FALSE)+
#   # Don't include a legend
#   scale_fill_discrete(drop=FALSE, guide="none")+
#   # Flip x and y
#   coord_flip()+
#   # Remove lines
#   theme_classic() -> fig1
# 
# fig1
class_df %>% 
    ggplot(aes(Olympics, fill=Olympics))+
  geom_bar()+
  geom_text(stat='count', aes(label=..count..), hjust=-0.25)+
  coord_flip()+
  ylim(0,30)+
  scale_fill_brewer()+
  theme_minimal()+
  labs(
    y="Count",
    x="",
    fill = "Olympics",
    title = "Winter or Summer Olympics"
  )

```

## Gymnastics is overrated

```{r }
#| label: creatures
#| echo: false


DT::datatable(class_df %>%  
                filter(share == 1) %>% 
                select(Olympics,`Favorite Event`),
               fillContainer = F,
              height = "90%",
              options = list(
                pageLength = 5
              )
              )
```

<!-- # {{< fa map-location>}} Thursday {.inverse} -->

<!-- ## Plan for today -->

<!-- -   Finish up discussion of -->

<!-- -   Receive-Accept-Sample [@Zaller1992-oq] -->

<!-- -   Misinformation application -->

<!-- -   Friday: -->

<!--     -   Read @Lodge2013-kq Skim chapter 1 (general argument of the book), read chapter 2. -->

<!-- -   Next week: DfR Chapters 4-6. -->

<!-- ## Announcements -->

<!-- -   Assignment 1: October 6 -->

<!-- -   Reading Reflections: -->

<!--     -   1st by October 15 -->

<!--     -   2nd by November 8 -->

<!--     -   3rd by December 6 -->

<!-- -   Term Paper: October 31 -->

## Class Attendance Survey

[Thank you for showing up!](https://brown.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_ea3uU8GtzshuZbo)

<!-- # {{< fa map-location>}} Friday {.inverse} -->

<!-- ## Plan for today -->

<!-- -   Misinformation discussion? -->

<!-- -   Finish up Receive-Accept-Sample [@Zaller1992-oq] -->

<!-- -   John Q. Public [@Lodge2013-kq] -->

<!-- -   Next week: Critiques of of JQP, DfR Chapters 4-6. -->

<!-- ## Announcements -->

<!-- -   Assignment 1: October 6 -->

<!-- -   Reading Reflections: -->

<!--     -   1st by October 15 -->

<!--     -   2nd by November 8 -->

<!--     -   3rd by December 6 -->

<!-- -   Term Paper: October 31 -->

# {{<fa lightbulb>}} Misinformation {.inverse}

## Motivating questions

-   What is misinformation?
-   Why do people become misinformed?
-   Can we correct misinformation?
-   Are reported misperceptions sincere?

## What is misinformation {.smaller}

::: panel-tabset
## Misinformation

-   @Kuklinski2000-id: "People are misinformed when they confidently hold wrong beliefs"

## Misinformation, Rumors, Conspiracy Beliefs

[Rumors]{.blue}

-   Lack evidentiary standards

-   May turn out to be true

[Conspiracy beliefs]{.blue}

-   Explain events via hidden, powerful actors

-   Often tied to dispositional predispositions

[Misinformation]{.blue}

-   Unambiguously false

-   Confidently held

## Kuklinski et al. (2000)

![](images/04_kuklinski_1.png)

[\@Kuklinski2000-id](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1111/0022-3816.00033)

## Welfare {.smaller}

Intrepetation:

-   The people who give the most inflated, factually wrong answers are often the most confident.

![](images/04_kuklinski_2.png)
:::

## Origins of misinformation? {.smaller}

::: nonincremental
@Jerit2020-px (pp 79-81) review some psychological explanations, emphasizing different cognitive motivations:

-   Accuracy motives $\to$ correct decisions
-   Directional motives $\to$ consistent decisions

Misinformation is a form of [motivated reasoning]{.blue} reflecting a directional desire to maintain consistency with ones' prior beliefs.

-   Directional motives are often the default in politics.

-   Identity-linked issues activate them most strongly.
:::

## Correcting Misinformation {.smaller}

-   Extensive but theoretically fragmented.

-   Depends on the issue, correction, and individuals

    -   Can you find concrete examples? (p. 83)

-   What counts as success?

    -   Changed beliefs?
    -   Changed attitudes?
    -   Both?

-   Possibility for corrections to [backfire]{.blue}

## Backfire Effects {.smaller}

::: panel-tabset
## Overview

-   What does it mean for a correction to backfire?

-   Why might corrections fail?

    -   Correction repeats misinfo, increasing salience
    -   Correction threatens worldview/identity triggering directional motives

-   Compare backfire effects in @Nyhan2015-yi to replication study @Haglin2017-wr

## Nyhan and Reifler (2015)

![](images/04_nyhan_1.png) ![](images/04_nyhan_2.png)

![](images/04_nyhan_3.png)

@Nyhan2015-yi

## Haglin (2017)

![](images/04_haglin_1.png)

![](images/04_haglin_2.png)

![](images/04_haglin_3.png) ![](images/04_haglin_4.png)

@Haglin2017-wr
:::

## Measuring misinformation

-   Conceptually, misinformation involves [confidently]{.blue} holding [false]{.blue} beliefs

    -   But many studies fail to measure confidence

-   Some scholars have proposed that misinformation is a form of [expressive responding]{.blue} or [partisan cheerleading]{.blue} and that partisan gaps disapper when we incentivize correct responses [@Bullock2015-dz]

    -   If partisan gaps disappear under incentives, are we observing misinformation — or expressive identity signaling?

-   What do we make of the directions for further research on p. 88?

## Broader Implications:

Think in terms of larger questions of citizen competence.

Why does it matter if citizens:

-   are confidently wrong?
-   are strategically expressive
-   update their factual beliefs, but not their subsequent interpretations?
-   only correct their beliefs when their identity is not threatened?

# {{<fa lightbulb>}} Political Cognition {.inverse}

## Overview

-   This is one of these topics that could be an entire course (or two)

-   Introduce two paradigms for thinking about political cognition

    -   Receive-Accept-Sample (Zaller and Feldman 1992, Zaller 1992)

    -   Dual-process models of cognition (Taber and Lodge )

## Background

-   How to citizens make sense of a complex world?

    -   They don't (Converse 1964)

-   They rely on cues and heuristics

    -   Often, but not only from elites

-   They construct attitudes which reflect a mix of:

    -   Predispositions, frames, schemas

    -   Salient considerations

## Theories of the middle range

> Sociological theory, if it is to advance significantly, must proceed on these interconnected planes: (1) by developing special theories from which to derive hypotheses that can be empirically investigated and (2) by evolving a progressively more general conceptual scheme that is adequate to consolidate groups of special theories - Merton (1968)

## Additional Readings {.smaller}

::: nonincremental
Some additional readings you might consider for your reading reflections

[Cues, Heuristics, Schema]{.blue}

-   @Mondak1993-gd “Source Cues and Policy Approval: The Cognitive Dynamics of Public Support for the Reagan Agenda.”

-   @Kuklinski1994-fw “On Hearing and Interpreting Political Messages: A Cautionary Tale of Citizen Cue-Taking.”

-   @Kam2005-od “Who Toes the Party Line? Cues, Values, and Individual Differences.”

-   @Kuklinski1991-me “Where Is the Schema? Going Beyond the "S" Word in Political Psychology.”

-   @Lau2001-kp “Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making.”

[Core Values, Moral Foundations]{.blue}

-   @Feldman1988-dg “Structure and Consistency in Public Opinion: The Role of Core Beliefs and Values.”

-   @Evans2020-ff “Core Political Values and the Long-Term Shaping of Partisanship.”

-   @Weber2013-ck “Moral Foundations and Heterogeneity in Ideological Preferences: Moral Foundations and Heterogeneity in Ideological Preferences.”

-   @Hatemi2019-tc “Ideology Justifies Morality: Political Beliefs Predict Moral Foundations.”

[Motivated Reasoning, Hot Cognition, Emotion]{.blue}

-   @Taber2006-fc “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.”

-   @Coronel2012-yh "Remembering and Voting: Theory and Evidence from Amnesic Patients."

-   @Valentino2011-ia “Election Night’s Alright for Fighting: The Role of Emotions in Political Participation.”

-   @Funck2024-zi “A Meta‐analytic Assessment of the Effects of Emotions on Political Information Search and Decision‐making.”
:::

# {{<fa lightbulb>}} Zaller and Feldman 1992 {.inverse}

## Take a few moments to review

-   What's the research question
-   What's the theoretical framework
-   What's the empirical design
-   What are the results
-   What are the conclusions

## What's the research question

## What's the research question

Why are survey responses:

-   So unstable over time?

-   So sensitive to question wording and order?

Do citizens:

-   Hold mainly non-attitudes [@Converse1964-zo]
-   Possess hidden “true attitudes”? [@Ansolabehere2008-ma]
-   Construct answers on the spot? [@Zaller1992-mz]

## What's the theoretical framework {.smaller}

Background:

-   Zaller and Feldman address research on response instability (Converse 1964) and response effects (question wording/order effects)

-   Reject the assumption that citizens possess fixed, survey-ready attitudes. Attitudes are not revealed — they are constructed.

::: fragment
> "... people are using the questionnaire to decide what their "attitudes" are (Bishop, Oldendick, and Tuchfarber 1984; Zaller 1984; Feldman 1990)." (p. 582)
:::

-   Citizens formulate responses to surveys from the **top of their head**

## What's the theoretical framework

Three axioms:

[**Axiom 1: The ambivalence axiom.**]{.blue} Most people have competing considerations on most issues.

## What's the theoretical framework

Three axioms:

**Axiom 1: The ambivalence axiom.**

[**Axiom 2: The response axiom.**]{.blue} Survey answers reflect an average of the considerations currently salient.

## What's the theoretical framework

Three axioms:

**Axiom 1: The ambivalence axiom.**

**Axiom 2: The response axiom.**

**Axiom 3: The accessibility axiom.** Salience depends on stochastic sampling — recently activated ideas are more likely to be used.

## What's the theoretical framework

::::: columns
::: {.column width="50%"}
-   Zaller and Feldman's (1992) framework provide the microfoundations for the **Recieve-Accept-Sample model** of mass opinion developed by Zaller (1992)

-   Rather than read two chapters, we read one article and rely on me to flesh out the RAS model this week and next
:::

::: {.column width="50%"}
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41Y6KK7We6L._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
:::
:::::

## Preview

![](images/05_cog/z1.png)

## Concepts {.smaller}

-   **Consideration:** Any reason that might induce an individual to decide a political issue one way or another.

-   **Political Awareness:** "the extent to which an individual pays attention to politics and understands what he or she has encountered." (Zaller 1992, p. 21) generally measured by standard PK-scales

-   **Predispositions:** stable, individual-level traits that regulate the acceptance or non-acceptance of the political communications the person receives" (Zaller 1992 p. 22)

-   **Ambivalence:** A person is ambivalent when they hold multiple, conflicting considerations

    -   Bipolar vs Bipartite scales

## What's the empirical design {.smaller}

-   Goal: Directly observe “considerations”

-   Two-wave panel data from the 1987 Pilot Study of the NES

-   Outcomes: Close-ended policy items (job guarantees, government services, and aid to Blacks)

-   Paired with:

    -   Retrospective Probes (Provide answer than explain)
    -   Prospective (List considerations then provide answer)

-   Key move: Link open ended considerations to close ended responses

-   Responses coded a number of ways (p. 589) to capture "ambivalence"

## Retrospective Probes: {.smaller}

::: nonincremental
-   Retrospective: "designed to find out what exactly was on people's minds at the moment of response"

> Still thinking about the question you just answered, I'd like you to tell me what ideas came to mind as you were answering that question. Exactly what things went through your mind. (Any others?)
:::

## Prospective Probes {.smaller}

::: nonincremental
-   Stop and Think: "designed to induce people to search their memories more carefully than they ordinarily would for pertinent considerations."

> Before telling me how you feel about this, could you tell me what kinds of things come to mind when you think about government making sure that every person has a good standard of living? (Any others?)

> Now, what comes to mind when you think about letting each person get ahead on their own? (Any others?)
:::

## What are the results

## What are the results

::::: columns
::: {.column width="40%"}
Model purports to explain a lot
:::

::: {.column width="60%"}
![](images/05_cog/z2.png)
:::
:::::

## What are the results

Let's condense these into the following claims:

-   People often hold conflicting considerations on issues (Ambivalence)

-   Total considerations increases with political knowledge (Reception)

-   People form responses from considerations at the top of their head (Response)

-   More consistent considerations = More stable responses (Ambivalence, Response, Resistance)

-   Political awareness moderates the effect of survey form

## People often hold conflicting considerations on issues {.smaller}

```{ojs}
//| echo: false

viewof q1 = Inputs.form([
  Inputs.textarea({
    label: "Axioms",
    placeholder: "Ambivalence, Response, Accessibility",
    width: "500"
  }),
  Inputs.textarea({
    label: "Evidence",
    placeholder: "Table? Page? Figure?",
    width: "500"
  })
])
```

## People often hold conflicting considerations on issues

::: panel-tabset
## Table 2

![](images/05_cog/z3.png)

## Table 5

![](images/05_cog/zt5.png)
:::

## Total considerations increases with political knowledge {.smaller}

```{ojs}
//| echo: false

viewof q2 = Inputs.form([
  Inputs.textarea({
    label: "Axioms",
    placeholder: "Ambivalence, Response, Accessibility",
    width: "500"
  }),
  Inputs.textarea({
    label: "Evidence",
    placeholder: "Table? Page? Figure?",
    width: "500"
  })
])
```

## Total considerations increases with political knowledge {.smaller}

![](images/05_cog/z4.png)

## People form responses from considerations at the top of their head {.smaller}

```{ojs}
//| echo: false

viewof q3 = Inputs.form([
  Inputs.textarea({
    label: "Axioms",
    placeholder: "Ambivalence, Response, Accessibility",
    width: "500"
  }),
  Inputs.textarea({
    label: "Evidence",
    placeholder: "Table? Page? Figure?",
    width: "500"
  })
])
```

## People form responses from considerations at the top of their head {.smaller}

::: panel-tabset
## Table 4

![](images/05_cog/z5.png)

## Table 5

![](images/05_cog/zt5.png)

## Repsonse Effects

![](images/05_cog/zre.png)
:::

## More consistent considerations = More stable responses {.smaller}

```{ojs}
//| echo: false

viewof q4 = Inputs.form([
  Inputs.textarea({
    label: "Axioms",
    placeholder: "Ambivalence, Response, Accessibility",
    width: "500"
  }),
  Inputs.textarea({
    label: "Evidence",
    placeholder: "Table? Page? Figure?",
    width: "500"
  })
])
```

## More consistent considerations = More stable responses {.smaller}

::: panel-tabset
## Table 6

![](images/05_cog/z6.png)

## Table 5

![](images/05_cog/zt5.png)
:::

## Political awareness moderates the effect of survey form {.smaller}

```{ojs}
//| echo: false

viewof q5 = Inputs.form([
  Inputs.textarea({
    label: "Axioms",
    placeholder: "Ambivalence, Response, Accessibility",
    width: "500"
  }),
  Inputs.textarea({
    label: "Evidence",
    placeholder: "Table? Page? Figure?",
    width: "500"
  })
])
```

## Political awareness moderates the effect of survey form {.smaller}

::: panel-tabset
## Table 7

![](images/05_cog/z7.png)

## Table 8

![](images/05_cog/z8.png)
:::

## Summary of the results

-   Unstable attitudes reflect underlying ambivalence

-   Describe attitudes as the result of a probabilistic search reflecting:

    -   Effects of ideas recently made salient
    -   Effects of thought on attitude reports

## What are the conclusions

-   As we'll see, the analyses here provide the foundation for the RAS model of mass opinion

    -   Elite driven

    -   Individuals in context

    -   But perhaps ignores the role of groups and issues

# {{<fa lightbulb>}} Receive-Accept-Sample {.inverse}

## What's the theoretical framework

::::: columns
::: {.column width="50%"}
-   Zaller and Feldman's (1992) framework provide the microfoundations for the [Receive-Accept-Sample]{.blue} model of mass opinion developed by Zaller (1992)
:::

::: {.column width="50%"}
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41Y6KK7We6L._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
:::
:::::

## Four Axioms of RAS

![](images/05_cog/z1.png)

## The RAS Model:

Opinion statements, are the outcome of a process in which:

-   People **receive** new information

-   Decide whether to **accept** it based on predispositions, prior considerations, contextual knowledge

-   **Sample** at the moment of answering questions by averaging across considerations

::: fragment
$$Pr(Liberal)= \frac{L}{L+C}$$
:::

-   "The probability of a liberal response equals the proportion of accessible considerations that are liberal."

## Implications of the Model

-   People are often ambivalent on issues

-   Ambivalence is a function of political awareness

-   Response effects reflect changes in the accessibility of different considerations

-   Persuasion depends on both reception and acceptance

-   The flow of information matters (one-sided vs two-sided)

## People are often ambivalent on issues

::::: columns
::: {.column width="50%"}
-   Politics is complex

-   People are often aware of arguments for and against particular issues
:::

::: {.column width="50%"}
![](images/05_cog/z3.png)
:::
:::::

## Ambivalence is a function of political awareness

::::: columns
::: {.column width="50%"}
-   The politically aware encounter more information but accept less

-   The political unaware encounter less, but may reject more inconsistently
:::

::: {.column width="50%"}
![](images/05_cog/z9.png)
:::
:::::

## Response effects

The accessibility axiom is consistent with "response effects" like:

-   Race of interviewer effects

-   Question order effects

-   Question wording effects

::: framgent
Each alter the saliency or accessibility of different considerations
:::

## Persuasion depends on both reception and acceptance

$$Pr(Change) = Pr(Reception)\times Pr(Acceptance|Reception)$$

![](images/05_cog/z10.png)

## Hard vs Easy Learning

![](images/05_cog/z12.png)

## The flow of information matters

-   RAS is a largely a top-down model, where people draw considerations from elite discourse.

-   RAS predicts change when the flow of information changes

-   The nature of changes should differ based

    -   Characteristics of individuals (political sophistication)
    -   The nature of information flow (one-sided vs two-sided)

## The flow of information matters

![](images/05_cog/z13.png)

## Changes in the Information Flow

![](images/05_cog/z14.png)

## Lead to Changes in Attitudes about Vietnam War

![](images/05_cog/z15.png)

## Summary: The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion {.smaller}

Zaller (1992) articulate's the Receive-Accept-Sample model of mass opinion

-   People receive information from the world
-   Decide whether to accept this information into their store of considerations
-   Form attitudes by sampling from their available considerations

## Summary: The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion {.smaller}

The RAS model implies that

-   People are often ambivalent on issues

    -   Possess competing considerations on issues

-   Ambivalence is a function of political awareness

    -   Low awareness: Few considerations
    -   Moderate awareness: Most ambivalence
    -   High awareness: Structured and consistent

-   Response effects reflect changes in the accessibility of different considerations

-   Persuasion depends on both reception and acceptance

    -   Political awareness increases reception, but decreases acceptance

-   The flow of information matters

    -   One sided vs Two sided

<!-- # {{<fa lightbulb>}} Studying Misinformation {.inverse} -->

<!-- ## Misinformation in the news -->

<!-- ::: panel-tabset -->

<!-- ## Overview -->

<!-- Let's consider some of Trump's recent statements on immigration -->

<!-- 1.  First read Trump's post on Truth Social -->

<!-- 2.  Skim the CNN fact check -->

<!-- 3.  Think about questions we might ask. -->

<!-- ## Trump -->

<!-- ![](images/05_trump.png) -->

<!-- ## Fact Check -->

<!-- [![](images/05_cnn.png)](https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/29/politics/fact-check-trump-harris-immigrants-homicide/index.html) -->

<!-- [(CNN)](https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/29/politics/fact-check-trump-harris-immigrants-homicide/index.html) -->

<!-- ## Qs for Wed -->

<!-- -   What's the effect of Trump's message? -->

<!-- -   How could Democrats try to counter this message? -->

<!-- -   How could we study these questions as social scientists? -->

<!-- ::: -->

<!-- ## What's the effect of Trump's post? {.smaller} -->

<!-- Consider a simple [survey experiment]{.blue}, in which we [randomly assign]{.blue} half of respondents to read the post, and half to read nothing (or to read a non-political post). -->

<!-- Now we could estimate an [Average Treatment Effect]{.blue} by comparing the difference in means on some outcome (survey question) between those who read the post and those who didn't -->

<!-- -   What are some outcomes we could measure? -->

<!-- -   What would we expect to find? -->

<!-- -   What are the strengths and limitations of this design? -->

<!-- -   How could we change/improve this simple design? -->

<!-- ## What are some outcomes we could measure? -->

<!-- -   Misinformation about immigration -->

<!-- -   Support for Trump/Harris -->

<!-- -   Trust in media/government -->

<!-- -   Others? -->

<!-- ## What are our expectations? {.smaller} -->

<!-- Overall, we might expect that reading the post -->

<!-- -   [Increases]{.blue} Misinformation about immigration -->

<!-- -   [Decreases]{.blue} Support for Harris -->

<!-- -   [Decreases]{.blue} Trust in media/government -->

<!-- But we might also expect that these effects vary by: -->

<!-- -   Partisanship -->

<!-- -   Political interest/sophistication -->

<!-- -   Race and ethnicity -->

<!-- -   Other factors? -->

<!-- ## Strengths and limitations {.smaller} -->

<!-- Strengths: -->

<!-- -   Random assignment creates credible [counterfactual comparisons]{.blue} -->

<!-- -   The only source of difference between these groups should be the fact that one read the post and the other did not -->

<!-- Weaknesses: -->

<!-- -   The effects of Trump's post likely vary on the likelihood of [receiving it]{.blue} -->

<!-- -   Are we spreading misinformation? -->

<!-- :::: fragment -->

<!-- ::: callout-note -->

<!-- Experimental designs are prized for their [internal validity]{.blue} -- we're confident that any differences we observe are due to treatment and not confounding factors -->

<!-- But experimental designs generally lack [ecological validity]{.blue}. How do we know the effects we observe study, are what we would actually see in the world? -->

<!-- ::: -->

<!-- :::: -->

<!-- ## How would we extend/modify this design -->

<!-- -   Add treatment conditions -->

<!--     -   Three-arm design: Control Post, Post plus Correction? -->

<!--     -   Four arm design: -->

<!-- -   Incorporate opportunities for choice and self selection [@De_Benedictis-Kessner2019-kg, @Testa2020-uw] -->

<!--     -   ATE is weighted average of treatment effects among those likely and unlikely to receive the treatment -->

# {{<fa lightbulb>}}Dual Process Models of Cognition {.inverse}

## Beyond Receive-Accept-Sample

-   RAS is a "useful" model
    -   It appears to explain a lot with relatively few assumptions
-   RAS is a "simple" model
    -   Lot's of mechanisms left unexplained
-   RAS is a survey response and opinion formation
-   Taber and Lodge make deeper claims about cognition, motivation, and evaluation

## Dual Process Models of Cognition

::::: columns
::: {.column width="60%"}
Dual process models distinguish between systems of cognition that are fast and slow

-   System 1: Fast, Automatic, sub/pre-conscious, parallel, long-term memory
-   System 2: Slow, Deliberate, conscious, serial, working memory
-   T&L: In politics, System 2 is often downstream of and justifying System 1 (rationalization)
:::

::: {.column width="40%"}
![](https://img1.od-cdn.com/ImageType-400/2390-1/22A/D35/B1/%7B22AD35B1-B466-42B5-B366-7000ED333AC7%7DImg400.jpg)
:::
:::::

## The Driving Analogy

![](https://media0.giphy.com/media/cAfaWIcWr7qus/giphy.gif)

## Taber and Lodge (2013)

::::: columns
::: {.column width="60%"}
Taber and Lodge (2013) use this dual process framework to argue citizens

-   Rationalizing, not rational
-   Influenced by subtle/implicit cues
-   Rely on a Likeability Heuristic (System 1)

Political judgment is driven by fast affective processes that bias what becomes "thinkable"; conscious reasoning often defends the result.
:::

::: {.column width="40%"}
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51PFF-3BgFL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
:::
:::::

## Taber and Lodge (2013)

The fundamental assumption driving our model is that both affective and cognitive reactions to external and internal events are triggered unconsciously, followed spontaneously by the spreading of activation through associative pathways which link thoughts to feelings, so that very early events, even those that remain invisible to conscious awareness, set the direction for all subsequent processing (p. 18)

## Taber and Lodge (2013)

The fundamental assumption driving our model is that both [**affective and cognitive reactions**]{.blue} to external and internal events [**are triggered unconsciously**]{.blue}, followed spontaneously by the spreading of activation through associative pathways which link thoughts to feelings, [**so that very early events**]{.blue}, even those that remain invisible to conscious awareness, [**set the direction for all subsequent processing**]{.blue} (p. 18)

## The Model

![](images/05_cog/t1.png)

## The Model {.smaller}

::::: columns
::: {.column width="30%"}
1.  Affect first (hot cognition)

2.  Affect biases retrieval (contagion + motivated bias)

3.  Deliberation often rationalizes (evaluation + deliberation)
:::

::: {.column width="70%"}
![](images/05_cog/t1.png)
:::
:::::

## Key Concepts:

-   [Early/implicit:]{.blue} hot cognition, affect priming, spreading activation

-   [Biasing mechanisms:]{.blue} affect contagion, motivated bias, affect transfer

-   [Downstream/explicit:]{.blue} argument construction, deliberation, rationalization

-   [Dynamics:]{.blue} attitude updating, belief updating

## Hypotheses {.smaller}

-   [Hot cognition:]{.blue} all political objects have positive or negative valence

-   [Automaticity:]{.blue} attitudes and behavior can be influenced by information processes that occur outside conscious awareness

-   [Affect transfer:]{.blue} affective states and primes can influence current thoughts

-   [Affect contagion:]{.blue} affective states and primes can influence information retrieval

-   [Motivated reasoning]{.blue} prior affect will bias attention and processing of information toward those prior beliefs

## Seven Postulates (p.34) {.smaller}

As you read/review this article, try to find examples/evidence of the following:

-   [Automaticity:]{.blue}

-   [Hot cognition:]{.blue}

-   [Somatic embodiment:]{.blue}

-   [Primacy of affect]{.blue}

-   [Online updating]{.blue}

-   [Affect transfer]{.blue}

-   [Affect contagion]{.blue}

## Hot Cognition

-   Automatic feelings associated with an event or object

-   Positive or negative

-   Preceed and shape more "rational" deliberative thoughts

## Who you got

![](images/05_cog/t6.png)

## Todorov et al. 2005

::::: columns
::: {.column width="60%"}
> inferences of competence based solely on facial appearance predicted the outcomes of U.S. congressional elections better than chance
:::

::: {.column width="40%"}
![](images/05_cog/t7.png)
:::
:::::

## Spreading Activation

-   What comes to mind when you think of former president Barack Obama?

## Spreading Activation {.smaller}

::::: columns
::: {.column width="50%"}
-   Illustration of hypothetical, white, Republican voter's beliefs about Obama

-   When think of Obama, these additional connections are activated

-   The stronger the connections, more likely they are to reach consciousness
:::

::: {.column width="45%"}
![](images/05_cog/t2.png)
:::
:::::

## Affect Transfer, Priming and Contagion

![](images/05_cog/t1.png)

## Affect Contagion

> An affective contagion effect, such that an unnoticed positive prime promotes positive thoughts and inhibits negative thoughts, while an unnoticed negative prime promotes negative and inhibits positive thoughts. (p. 136)

## Affect Contagion

![](images/05_cog/t4.png)

## Affect Contagion

::::: columns
::: {.column width="60%"}
> Simple cartoon faces ﬂashed outside the conscious awareness of experimental subjects signiﬁcantly and consistently altered their thoughts and considerations on a political issue, with effects greater in size to those of prior attitudes on the issue (p. 142)
:::

::: {.column width="40%"}
![](images/05_cog/t5.png)
:::
:::::

## Motivated Reasoning

::::: columns
::: {.column width="60%"}
-   Ask participants to rate the strength of equivalent arguments

-   People with strong priors, greater knowledge, rate congruent arguments as stronger because retrieval/counterarguing are affect-biased (disconfirmation / counterarguing).
:::

::: {.column width="40%"}
![](images/05_cog/t3.png)
:::
:::::

## Taber and Lodge (2013) - The Rationalizing Voter

-   Dual process model of cognition

    -   System 1: Fast, automatic, outside consciousness (How they actually make many decisions)

    -   System 2: Slow, deliberative, conscious thought (How we think citizens should make political decisions)

-   Affect proceeds and shapes attitudes and behavior

## Seven Postulates (p.34) {.smaller}

Information processing is

-   [Automaticity:]{.blue} Priming studies

-   [Hot cognition:]{.blue} "Thin slice" cadidate evaulations

-   [Somatic embodiment:]{.blue} Iowa gambling experiment

-   [Primacy of affect]{.blue} fMRI studies showing affect proceeds conscious thought

-   [Online updating]{.blue} Candidate evaluation and recall studies

-   [Affect transfer]{.blue} "Sunny day" studies

-   [Affect contagion]{.blue} Long run consequences of hot cognition and affect transfer

## Critiques

-   Implicit vs Explicit attitudes

-   Are priming effects short lived?

    -   Are they real?

-   External (and internal validity)

-   Positive/Negative affect vs Discrete Emotions

## References
