Skip to Content

Support MinnPost

MinnPost logo 7th Anniversary

MinnPost’s online auction is now live!
Register and start bidding today

This content is made possible by the generous sponsorship support of UCare.

'Motivated reasoning' helps myths persist about Obama's health-care reform, study finds

Years after President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, myths about it still persist.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) may be law, but misinformation — indeed, downright myths about what’s in the law — persist in the minds of many Americans.

That’s true even of what may be the biggest falsehood about the ACA: former Gov. Sarah Palin’s 2009 claim that the ACA would create “death panels” that would decide which older or disabled Americans would be “worthy of health care.” As late as spring 2012, a national poll found that 36 percent of Americans believed that the ACA would “[a]llow a government panel to make decisions about end-of-life care for people on Medicare.”

It’s been argued that the media bears much of the blame for the public’s misperceptions about the ACA and other controversial health issues. If the media were more aggressive in debunking such myths, this argument goes, people would be less likely to persist in their belief in them.

Research has suggested, however, that facts are often not enough to overcome the psychological phenomenon known as “motivated reasoning” — people’s tendency to ignore information that contradicts their pre-existing attitudes and beliefs.

A new study, published in the February issue of the journal Medical Care, suggests that motivated reasoning may be driving many Americans’ misperceptions regarding health-care reform. The study found that media-presented facts regarding “death panels” have a corrective effect only on some people’s beliefs — and that they may actually push others to harden their false conviction that the ACA establishes those panels.

How the study was conducted

For the study, researchers at Dartmouth College, George State University and Duke University devised an experiment involving 948 participants recruited through SurveySpot, an online site that gives people cash and rewards for completing opinion surveys. The median age of the participants was 51. They were almost evenly divided by gender (53 percent male), but were overwhelmingly white (78 percent). Some 45 percent identified themselves as Democrats, while 35 percent said they were Republicans.

Going into the study, well over half of the participants (59 percent) reported that they disapproved of the ACA either “strongly” or “somewhat” — a percentage that is consistent with national polling. The participants were also asked five basic questions that measured their level of political knowledge, such as “How many times can a person be elected President?”

For the experiment itself, the participants were asked to read a news article that reported Palin’s “death panel” claim. For one group, however, the article contained a paragraph at the end that explained why “nonpartisan health care experts have concluded that Palin is wrong.”

Participants were then asked a second time about their belief in death panels and their support for the ACA. The results were somewhat surprising.

“The correction reduced belief in death panels and strong opposition to the reform bill among those who view Palin unfavorably and those who view her favorably but have low political knowledge,” wrote the study’s authors. “However, it backfired among politically knowledgeable Palin supports, who were more likely to believe in death panels and to strongly oppose reform if they received the correction.”

“These results,” the authors concluded, “underscore the difficulty of reducing misperceptions about health care reform among individuals with the motivation and sophistication to reject corrective information.”

‘A human phenomenon’

Non-Palin supporters — especially Democrats — shouldn’t get too smug about the study’s results, however.

“This is not a Republican phenomenon. It’s not a Democratic phenomenon. It’s a human phenomenon,” said co-author and Duke University behavioral scientist Dr. Peter Ubel in a video that accompanied the study’s release. “If we found something the Democrats believed strongly in that was false and showed that to be false, I think the same exact thing would have happened.”

Get MinnPost's top stories in your inbox

Related Tags:

Comments (2)

Because my experience is

Because my experience is that, today, more Democrats seem to align their political views with the facts on the ground, I would love to see these researchers actually conduct a study that proves them right when they say: “If we found something the Democrats believed strongly in that was false and showed that to be false, I think the same exact thing would have happened.”

They'd first have to find something Democrats "strongly believed in that was false."

Until then, I'm continuing to conclude that it's Republicans who can't face the truth when their ideology gets in the way.

Old Adage

This simply falls in with the old adage "don't bother me with the facts--my mind's made up." People will simply discard facts that don't fall in with their world view. It's like the people who think that they are indeed Napoleon. You can point out to them the Napoleon lived in the early 1800s and people then typically didn't live beyond age 70 and they'll simply get angry with you. Anything that challenges their world view is to be angrily denied and dismissed.

And so it goes with people who think the government has created death panels. All evidence to the contrary is ignored and denied.

Ironically, the insurance companies did have the equivalent of death panels by denying people coverage due to pre-existing conditions or by denying people treatment for diseases. Drag out the process long enough, the patient dies, and then they don't have to pay out.

This all stems from the Republican rhetoric for the past 30 years that government is part of the problem, not the solution. We hear over and over again that big gub'mint is bad and it must be shrunk to the point where it can be drowned in the bathtub. They'll deny it of course and claim that SOME government is good, as long as it sticks to national defense and building roads to their front door. Social services though? No. Arts? No. Line the pockets of large corporations? Sure, they can get behind that. Hence the big push to outsource government services, even though it ends up costing the tax payer more money, not less.

Ah well. So many data points there to connect. It's tough to reason with people who aren't reasonable.