ABSTRACT
Freedom of opinion is the hallmark of democratic societies. Not only do people in free societies hold opinions that may differ from their neighbours, but they can also express them. Free societies enjoy a plurality of media products that range from different books, newspapers, magazines, films, plays, TV and radio shows, to new formats such as Internet blogs and postings. Never in the history of mankind has it been so easy to inform oneself about different perspectives and be exposed to a variety of views – at least in democratic societies. Virtually with the click of a finger we have access to a vast amount of facts, opinions and arguments, although it is certainly true that some pieces of information are easier to come by than others, and not all information may indeed be available or digestible. This large-scope availability of information might suggest that people are better equipped to come to well-founded opinions, that claims need to be based on solid evidence, and that persuasive arguments contain substantial and undisputable facts. Moreover, one might expect that given exposure to a plurality of opinions, differences abate and the different opinions become less extreme. This would only follow, however, if people sample information (opinions as well as supporting evidence) in an unbiased way and then process it in an unbiased manner. The respective evidence sheds some doubt on this premise, as we will highlight in this chapter. People tend to shun information that is contradictory to their views. If they come into contact with such information they distort it, interpret it in a way that is more compatible with their views or discredit it. Depending on other conditions, such information may also be remembered less well. In sum, attitudes may both bias our interpretation of social reality and affect the intensity of our information processing. Furthermore, these effects of attitudes may also contribute to stabilising and reinforcing our existing attitudes.
