Biases in the Assimilation of Technological Breakdowns: Do Accidents Make Us Safer?

Abstract

Field surveys and anecdotal evidence suggest that supporters and opponents of a given technology tend to draw opposite conclusions from noncatastrophic breakdowns. Three studies confirmed this tendency by presenting supporters and opponents of a particular technology with identical descriptions of various technological breakdowns. As predicted, the results indicated that (a) supporters focused on the fact that the safeguards worked, while opponents focused on the fact that the breakdown occurred in the first place; and (b) after reading about the breakdown, supporters reported feeling that the chances of a catastrophic accident were less than previously assumed, whereas opponents reported feeling that the chances of an accident were greater than previously assumed. The recommendation by Lord, Lepper, and Preston (1984) for partisans to consider opposite outcomes‐such as a serious failure in safeguards or the absence of major breakdowns—was discussed as a way of preventing biased assimilation and attitude polarization.