Counter explanation and consider the opposite: Do corrective strategies reduce biased assimilation and attitude polarization in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic?

Abstract

AbstractPeople have conflicting opinions on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), from disagreements about the vaccine's effectiveness to competing claims about the need for restrictions. The present two studies (Ns = 262 and 250) examined whether COVID‐19 beliefs had a confirmatory impact on how belief‐relevant scientific research is evaluated and whether the use of corrective strategies (counter explanation and consider the opposite) reduces this bias. While biased assimilation (belief‐consistent studies were evaluated more positively than belief‐inconsistent studies) and perceived attitude polarization (participants reported that their beliefs became more extreme) effects were strong and consistent, evidence for overcoming these biases was mixed. Whereas considering the opposite had a corrective effect on biased assimilation and perceived attitude polarization, counter explanation depolarized actual attitude change.