Relational Processing of Conflicting Arguments

Abstract

When exposed to conflicting arguments, people tend to evaluate the attitude-congruent arguments favorably and the attitude-incongruent arguments unfavorably. This phenomenon is called biased assimilation. Prior research has shown that the biased assimilation of conflicting arguments is robust. Yet, relatively little is known about how conflicting arguments are processed, thereby increasing or decreasing the influence of preexisting attitudes on the argument evaluation. The present study examined relational (vs. separate) processing of conflicting arguments—that is, strategically connecting the arguments with each other—and its effects on biased assimilation. In two online studies, Japanese adults (Study 1: N = 406, Study 2: N = 447) received and evaluated two conflicting arguments concerning the introduction of daylight savings in one of two presentation modes: sequential (one at a time) or simultaneous (at one time). Although, in Studies 1 and 2, presentation mode did not influence relational processing or biased assimilation, quite a few participants reported that they engaged to varying degrees in relational processing while evaluating the arguments. Additionally, results of Study 2 indicated that participants' self-reported relational processing had moderating effects on biased assimilation. The present findings have implications for the further elucidation of the cognitive processes of biased assimilation and the development of debiasing techniques.