Why do people cling to false health reform beliefs?

Blame motivated reasoning.

Newsweek’s Sharon Begley writes about the phenomenon, which goes a long way why the myth about “death panels” continues to persist in the health reform conversation. She cites the work of sociologist Steve Hoffman, who explains: “Rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe.”

And with a growing majority obtaining their news through pundit-tinged lens, such as from FOX News on the right and MSNBC on the left, there’s always fodder to confirm pre-existing beliefs.

Ms. Begley goes on to suggest that cognitive dissonance is also in play:

This theory holds that when people are presented with information that contradicts preexisting beliefs, they try to relieve the cognitive tension one way or another. They process and respond to information defensively, for instance: their belief challenged by fact, they ignore the latter. They also accept and seek out confirming information but ignore, discredit the source of, or argue against contrary information.

This is seen often in those who believe there is a link between vaccine and autism, despite convincing evidence to the contrary.

And with information freely available on the internet and on the 24-hour cable news cycle, there are endless opportunities to confirm, rather than challenge, one’s beliefs.

email

  • http://www.seefirstblog.com Evan Falchuk

    It’s an interesting theory, Kevin.

    But doesn’t it seem more likely that what’s happening is this:

    Health care reform is a complicated topic that hasn’t been explained very well.

    I mean, even when Newsweek tries to debunk “lies” about health care reform, they do more to illustrate why people are so confused about what’s going on.

    More here: http://bit.ly/info/2dL6MP

    Thanks for another interesting post, Kevin.

    Evan

  • Matt

    Makes me think of physicians’ tort reform beliefs. All skepticism is disregarded with respect to any claim that might supports a previously held belief.

  • melcos

    You are way overthinking this… Bottom line is that 80% of Americans are happy with their health care – so any change is seen as likely negative. Let’s be honest and admit that we are all selfish – everyone is for helping those who don’t have good care… until they are asked to give up something that is as personal as health care… The best government mandated health care reform will be political suicide, and HR 3200 is such a dogs mess that it only makes it worse…

  • http://content.healthaffairs.org feminizedwesternmale

    “Rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe.”

    We are now into a second generation (or more) of formal education where reason and faith are dirty words; why then is anyone surprised that people no longer value Truth? If you can swallow the “red-pill” and understand this, you will see the ship has already hit the iceberg – we ain’t going back.

    I’m looking forward to the time that people start talking and writing about solutions, rather than musing over various symptoms.

  • http://www.hodakvalue.com/blog MHodak

    Sharon Begley is an expert at rediscovering the wheel, and suggesting it might work for things other than chariots. What she’s citing here is “confirmation bias,” one of the best-known, most studied examples of bias in the social sciences. And it’s a particularly weak application of this bias in using it to explain the persistence of the “death panels” discussion.

    I think Evan is closer to the mark in suggesting that trying to debunk death panels is simply a way to avoid confronting the underlying reality that most people simply don’t trust this big, complicated, transformative government proposal. Their distrust is fed by the entirely rational concern that the politicians propelling this reform refuse to acknowledge the potential costs and downsides. For most people, “death panels” is simply code for all those things, known and unknown, that health care reform might lead to, but are totally unacknowledged in the rush to pass something, anything, that will resonate with the base.

  • ninguem

    False health reform beliefs.

    You mean like, “If you like your current insurance, you can keep it”?

    Or “The public option will keep the private plans honest”?

  • http://roguemedic.blogspot.com Rogue Medic

    With the death panels, this does seem to be a case of confirmation bias. Many people, who do not trust the government to run health care, are willing to believe outlandish and absurd claims – as long as the claims support their beliefs.

    This is true of both left and right wing positions on political issues. Many people will believe complete fairy tales, as long as the fairy tale supports their other beliefs.

    It isn’t just politics. Anti-science is a huge problem. Unlike politics, there is an answer that is based on evidence from a variety of sources. Still, there are anti-vacinationists, alternative medicine pushers, Creationists, psychics, astrologists, mind readers, and many other anti-science beliefs that survive, in spite of abundant evidence that they are false.

    The media try to give balanced portrayals, because there are not many joirnalists, who recognize that this nonsense is nonsense

  • Doc99

    People wouldn’t mistrust government so much if government wouldn’t give them good reason for mistrust. How should one react when a prominent congressman, eg John Conyers, mocks the concept of actually “reading the blil?” And what are we to make of section 431 of the House effort which insinuates the IRS into Healthcare? Is that the same IRS over which the profligate Charles Rangel’s Ways and Means presides?

    The media have great sport mocking citizens who ask legitimate questions, yet turn a blind eye when Madame Speaker compares them to Hitler’s “Brown Shirts.”

    Finally, there’s that Death Panel controversy. JUst the thought of Zeke Emanuel or Peter Singer’s input here is enough to provoke the most basal vaso-vagal response. And again, this would be just so much fearmongering had Charles Grassley not offered that the Death Panels were out. Finally, the chilling story from the UK last week of the less than compassionate care rendered to folks judged terminally ill should give any citizen pause. Remember, Soylent Green is People and To Serve Man is as Cookbook.

  • ninguem

    The government was not an honest broker when they sold Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. Cost projections made for the year 2000 were reached in 1970. They knew it would reall cost far, far, FAR more than they said it would……and then eventually it would go bankrupt.

    They lied.

    The government was not an honest broker with immigration. Let’s do amnesties, etc., and we’ll secure the borders later. Reagan did it. Bush tried to do it. And that’s the RIGHT. Lord knows what the left would do.

    Americans correctly realized they were being lied to.

    Why should we believe them now?

    Re: the brownshirt thing. People still don’t realize, the people doing the protesting are as angry with the Republicans as they are with the Democrats.

  • http://diagnosticinformationsystem.com Bob Coli, MD

    In Less Than 48 Hours:

    Every rational person should favor Congress enacting the right combination of policy reforms that will finally reduce the long-term growth of health care spending, while also improving quality. Ultimately a legislative policy choice will be made. Will it be more government market control or more value-based price and quality competition?

    The “four pillars” of the newly published Brookings Institute report are “concrete and feasible” steps that would effectively replace the various “government control solutions” percolating through Congress in 2009 with a “private market solution” that is consumer-centered and value-driven.

    See: http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2009/0901_btc.aspx

    Brookings’ interrelated four pillars mirror the “four cornerstones” of a pro-consumer, value-driven, healthcare reform proposal that was proposed in 2004 and vigorously pursued by HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt and the Bush administration. These are the nationwide development of interoperable healthcare information technology that would enable measurement and publication of both price and quality information for buyers (consumers, private and public businesses and government) and using incentives to promote quality and efficiency of care.

    See: http://hhs.gov/valuedriven.

    The multi-trillion dollar question is will this partisan President, this partisan Congress and the “institutions that currently prevent patients from consistently getting the best quality care at the lowest cost” be wise enough to admit that the four pillars/cornerstones approach is really the only rational choice.

    All 310 million Americans, including the approximately 50 million uninsured, should begin to find out the answer in less than 48 hours.

Trending