Myths and memory

Recent research reported in Persistence of Myths Could Alter Public Policy Approach   (Washington Post 9/4) explains why many Americans still believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 and most of the  hijackers were Iraqi.  In spite of contradictory evidence, it is difficult for people to change a belief because ANY mention of the issue can reinforce the idea that it is true.  To quote the article:

While these beliefs likely arose because Bush administration officials have repeatedly tried to connect Iraq with Sept. 11, the experiments suggest that intelligence reports and other efforts to debunk this account may in fact help keep it alive.

The research shows that repetition is the key to firmly held beliefs.

The studies show that the brain uses subconscious "rules of thumb" that can bias it into thinking that false information is true....Denials inherently require repeating the bad information, which may be one reason they can paradoxically reinforce it.... Things that are repeated often become more accessible in memory, and one of the brain's subconscious rules of thumb is that easily recalled things [such as one's birthday] are true.

Masters of propaganda have always known what it takes to manipulate the public, but now research explains why people continue to believe a Big Lie. As the reporter, Shankar Vedantam, says:

In politics and elsewhere, ... whoever makes the first assertion about something has a large advantage over everyone who denies it later.

Research has also found that many people, especially older people, have difficulty remembering where and when they first learned something. Moreover, many will continue to believe whether or not they know a source is credible.

Even if a person recognizes which sources are credible and which are not, repeated assertions and denials can have the effect of making the information more accessible in memory and thereby making it feel true.

Here are some details about one study:  A University of Michigan social psychologist found that after reading statements from the Centers for Disease Control labeled true and false, within 30 minutes older people misremembered 28 percent of the false statements as true, and 40 percent three days later.  Younger people took longer to "misremember," but three days later they made as many errors as older people got wrong after 30 minutes. Furthermore, both groups believed the "facts" came from the CDC.

The experiments also highlight the difference between asking people whether they still believe a falsehood immediately after giving them the correct information, and asking them a few days later. Long-term memories matter most in public health campaigns or political ones, and they are the most susceptible to the bias of thinking that well-recalled false information is true.

The experiments do not show that denials are completely useless; if that were true, everyone would believe the myths. But the mind's bias does affect many people, especially those who want to believe the myth for their own reasons, or those who are only peripherally interested and are less likely to invest the time and effort needed to firmly grasp the facts.

What is a debunker to do?  The research offers this suggestion:

Rather than deny a false claim, it is better to make a completely new assertion that makes no reference to the original myth. Rather than say, as Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) recently did during a marathon congressional debate, that "Saddam Hussein did not attack the United States; Osama bin Laden did," ... it would be better to say something like, "Osama bin Laden was the only person responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks" -- and not mention Hussein at all.

This article has helped me understand why reason gets nowhere with determined opponents of the issues I care about.  Now I can be more tolerant of their inability to modify their views.  Someone else got to them first.