Motivated Reasoning
Hayhoe's ideas align with research on motivated reasoning, or the factors and goals that underlie people's thinking processes. When people are deciding what messages they want to pay attention to, they aren't always driven by a desire to find the most factually accurate answer; instead, Lupia says, "A lot rides on protection of self esteem."
At the April conference Lupia noted that "for contested issues, high credibility is a must." Furthermore, he said, repeatedly hearing the same message from the same expected sources doesn't make a difference in terms of the message getting through, but hearing it from an unexpected source—for example, someone of a faith or political background not typically aligned with that message—does.
On the other hand, "beliefs, even very implausible ones, can be held in place through social support," says Peter Ditto, a professor of psychology and social behavior at the University of California, Irvine. "If I hear that global warming science is all just made up & and that sounds not quite right to me, but then I tune in to [media outlets where] I hear lots of other people who all seem pretty credible who believe this too, that initially implausible-sounding idea starts to sound much more plausible."
Scheufele explains there is a science behind heuristics, or the tools people use to simplify, understand, and integrate complex information into their worldview. His research supports the psychological theory that people are "cognitive misers" who typically base their opinions and decisions on the least amount of information possible (or the most easily accessible information) rather than reading original research or legislation. In psychology circles, the cognitive miser model contrasts with the "scientific literacy model," which posits that if people just knew the science, they would support its progress and implications.
The two models may, ultimately, be complementary. Scheuefele has studied how laypeople and scientists develop opinions, using nanotechnology as a focus. "Scientists use the same heuristics that the lay public uses," he says. "Professional judgments mean a lot, but so does ideology."
When it comes to matters involving one's own well-being—be it a personal health scare or the implications of climate change—people don't automatically turn away from scary information, at least initially, according to Ditto. "They turn toward it and see if they can 'think it away,'" he says. "Because they are more skeptical about it, it takes more information to make them believe something they don't want to believe." As he puts it, one doctor can convince you that you are healthy, but you want a second opinion when a doctor says you have a terminal illness.
"Any theory of motivated reasoning has to capture the nuance that what we believe is some compromise between what we want to believe and what [our survival] will let us believe," Ditto said at the April conference. "Believing things are a bit more positive than they are may be helpful, but if those positive illusions get too far out of alignment with reality, then things can get problematic," he says today. "My research suggests that with clear enough information, people believe things even when they don't want to believe them. Everyone will accept the validity of climate science once they're ankle-deep in ocean water."