Psychology Department, The College of New Jersey.
Psychol Sci. 2021 Apr;32(4):611-621. doi: 10.1177/0956797620972367. Epub 2021 Mar 5.
Fernbach et al. (2013) found that political extremism and partisan in-group favoritism can be reduced by asking people to provide mechanistic explanations for complex policies, thus making their lack of procedural-policy knowledge salient. Given the practical importance of these findings, we conducted two preregistered close replications of Fernbach et al.'s Experiment 2 (Replication 1a: = 306; Replication 1b: = 405) and preregistered close and conceptual replications of Fernbach et al.'s Experiment 3 (Replication 2: = 343). None of the key effects were statistically significant, and only one survived a small-telescopes analysis. Although participants reported less policy understanding after providing mechanistic policy explanations, policy-position extremity and in-group favoritism were unaffected. That said, well-established findings that providing justifications for prior beliefs strengthens those beliefs, and well-established findings of in-group favoritism, were replicated. These findings suggest that providing mechanistic explanations increases people's recognition of their ignorance but is unlikely to increase their political moderation, at least under these conditions.
费恩巴赫等人(2013 年)发现,通过要求人们对复杂政策提供机械性解释,可以减少政治极端主义和党派内群体偏好,从而使他们缺乏程序性政策知识变得明显。鉴于这些发现的实际重要性,我们对费恩巴赫等人的实验 2 进行了两次预先注册的密切复制(复制 1a:n=306;复制 1b:n=405),并对费恩巴赫等人的实验 3 进行了预先注册的密切和概念复制(复制 2:n=343)。关键效应均无统计学意义,且仅有一个效应在小望远镜分析中存活。尽管参与者在提供机械性政策解释后报告称对政策的理解减少了,但政策立场的极端性和内群体偏好并未受到影响。也就是说,为先前信念提供理由会增强这些信念的既定发现,以及内群体偏好的既定发现,都得到了复制。这些发现表明,提供机械性解释会增加人们对自己无知的认识,但不太可能增加他们的政治温和度,至少在这些条件下是如此。