ABSTRACT
Television news programs often use a debate-type format to present controversial issues, with proponents from each side of the disagreement presenting their views in sequence. Imagine that you are watching a debate concerning an issue that you do not know much about, say a controversy over the best method of allocating funds for medical research. One likely response in such a circumstance is to flip the channel to a more easily understood presentation. But assuming that you decide to watch, you hear the first speaker advocate a broadly based research effort to identify a cure for the target disease. You may have some difficulty understanding the details of her arguments, but in general they seem well thought-out and reasonable—that is, until the opposing arguments are presented. The opposing speaker, arguing for a narrowly focused investigation into a particularly promising cure, also presents highly plausible arguments, and you may think, “Why didn’t that occur to me?” Contrast your response to that of the two experts whose livelihood is tied up in their ongoing debate on the topic (and who may have faced off against each other on other news shows earlier in the evening). While the first speaker is outlining her views, the second is probably busy countering each of the arguments. They do not experience the uncomfortable flip-flop in attitudes likely to characterize the responses of the less well-informed viewers.
