单独商议:商议的偏见和放弃政治谈话

IF 5.4 3区 材料科学 Q2 CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL
Bryan Mclaughlin, K. Wilkinson, Hector Rendon, T. Martinez
{"title":"单独商议:商议的偏见和放弃政治谈话","authors":"Bryan Mclaughlin, K. Wilkinson, Hector Rendon, T. Martinez","doi":"10.1093/hcr/hqac016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In our research examining how people think and talk about immigration, we consistently find that people want to have a reasonable conversation about politics, but they often decide that productive conversations are not possible because other people are uninformed, irrational, close-minded, and uncivil. We argue that self-serving biases and phenomenological experiences lead to the biased perception that the self is far more capable of adhering to the ideals of rational deliberation than others, a process that we refer to as deliberative bias. In Study 1, we use data from in-depth interviews to develop the concept of deliberative bias. In Study 2, we use a survey to demonstrate that perceptions that other people are uninformed, irrational, close-minded, and uncivil are related to a decreased likelihood of talking politics with loose ties or those with opposing perspectives. These results suggest that deliberative bias may be a significant impediment to productive political conversations.","PeriodicalId":4,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Energy Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deliberating alone: deliberative bias and giving up on political talk\",\"authors\":\"Bryan Mclaughlin, K. Wilkinson, Hector Rendon, T. Martinez\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/hcr/hqac016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In our research examining how people think and talk about immigration, we consistently find that people want to have a reasonable conversation about politics, but they often decide that productive conversations are not possible because other people are uninformed, irrational, close-minded, and uncivil. We argue that self-serving biases and phenomenological experiences lead to the biased perception that the self is far more capable of adhering to the ideals of rational deliberation than others, a process that we refer to as deliberative bias. In Study 1, we use data from in-depth interviews to develop the concept of deliberative bias. In Study 2, we use a survey to demonstrate that perceptions that other people are uninformed, irrational, close-minded, and uncivil are related to a decreased likelihood of talking politics with loose ties or those with opposing perspectives. These results suggest that deliberative bias may be a significant impediment to productive political conversations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":4,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Energy Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Energy Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqac016\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Energy Materials","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqac016","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在我们调查人们如何思考和谈论移民的研究中,我们始终发现人们希望就政治进行合理的对话,但他们往往认为,由于其他人不了解情况、不理性、思想封闭和不文明,因此不可能进行富有成效的对话。我们认为,自私自利的偏见和现象学经验导致了一种偏见的看法,即自我比他人更有能力坚持理性思考的理想,我们将这一过程称为审议偏见。在研究1中,我们使用深度访谈的数据来发展审慎偏见的概念。在研究2中,我们使用一项调查来证明,认为其他人不了解情况、不理性、思想封闭和不文明的看法与与松散关系或持相反观点的人谈论政治的可能性降低有关。这些结果表明,审慎偏见可能是富有成效的政治对话的重大障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Deliberating alone: deliberative bias and giving up on political talk
In our research examining how people think and talk about immigration, we consistently find that people want to have a reasonable conversation about politics, but they often decide that productive conversations are not possible because other people are uninformed, irrational, close-minded, and uncivil. We argue that self-serving biases and phenomenological experiences lead to the biased perception that the self is far more capable of adhering to the ideals of rational deliberation than others, a process that we refer to as deliberative bias. In Study 1, we use data from in-depth interviews to develop the concept of deliberative bias. In Study 2, we use a survey to demonstrate that perceptions that other people are uninformed, irrational, close-minded, and uncivil are related to a decreased likelihood of talking politics with loose ties or those with opposing perspectives. These results suggest that deliberative bias may be a significant impediment to productive political conversations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Energy Materials
ACS Applied Energy Materials Materials Science-Materials Chemistry
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
1368
期刊介绍: ACS Applied Energy Materials is an interdisciplinary journal publishing original research covering all aspects of materials, engineering, chemistry, physics and biology relevant to energy conversion and storage. The journal is devoted to reports of new and original experimental and theoretical research of an applied nature that integrate knowledge in the areas of materials, engineering, physics, bioscience, and chemistry into important energy applications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信