Findings from psychology
What to do with extreme attitudes, Mr Winter?
Dr Kevin Winter will be a deputy professor of occupational and environmental psychology at the University of Wuppertal in the summer semester 2024 // Photo Carmen Moosmann
Mr Winter, when was the last time you consciously changed your mind?
Haha, I don't think that's such an easy question to answer. We constantly change our minds in everyday life and are exposed to many attempts to influence us. This often concerns small things and doesn't necessarily happen consciously. One example of a conscious change in attitude that I can cite was a while ago. Back then, I often discussed the topic of meat consumption with my wife, who had been a vegetarian for a long time, and at some point I realised that I didn't have any good arguments for why we should eat animals. So I consciously changed my attitude towards meat consumption - but it took a while before I actually changed my behaviour.
In your research, you mainly focus on people's extreme attitudes in the context of public debates. There are currently many hotly debated topics: Sustainability and climate, gender-sensitive language, migration and integration, war. At what point do you consider an opinion to be extreme?
In our research, we record opinions - we tend to speak of attitudes - on a continuum. This means that we ask our study participants to rate statements on the topics we are interested in with a certain degree of agreement or disagreement. If people strongly disagree or strongly agree with a statement, we would speak of an extreme attitude. However, it is difficult to pin this down to a specific value. Such extreme attitudes can be a component of political or social polarisation - in other words, when we observe that there are topics on which a large number of people either strongly disagree or strongly agree.
Do you think there is such a thing as a current culture of debate and, if so, do you perceive it differently than, say, five to ten years ago?
Psychological research has long been concerned with the phenomenon that people reject arguments that contradict their opinion and select arguments that support their own opinion. This form of confirmation, we call it confirmatory tendencies, which I believe many people recognise in current discussions, is therefore nothing new. What has changed, of course, is the greater spread of social media, through which discussions are held in public. Research shows that confirmatory tendencies in social media, for example, contribute significantly to the spread of misinformation. Another factor is algorithms that ensure that we are more frequently presented with content that matches our preferences. This can lead to a greater polarisation of attitudes. However, what possibly distinguishes today's debates from previous ones is that they are often highly emotionalised. Issues such as migration or gender-equitable language affect our personal values, while climate change, war and pandemics pose an existential threat. Under such conditions, people tend to want to defend their own opinions and are less open to other points of view.
The European elections are just behind us, and the previous election campaign, including the violent attack on a candidate in Dresden, showed where extreme attitudes can lead on certain issues. Some topics and their debates are on your radar for research reasons: is it the case that the public debate is often only about black or white and the balance of different opinions is neglected?
In general, I would warn against overestimating the extent of polarisation in our society. Current studies show that Germany is doing quite well in this respect compared to other countries, such as the USA. However, it is often the extreme opinions that are very loud and visible, both in media coverage and in public discourse - for example on social media. However, there is also a large section of the population that is somewhere between the extremes on many of the issues mentioned. We should not lose sight of this - often larger - group. This does not mean that we should play down the danger posed by extreme attitudes. On the contrary: the example you mentioned makes it clear that extreme attitudes can also lead to extreme and sometimes violent behaviour under certain circumstances. Our research is therefore interested in how extreme attitudes can be weakened in order to counter such developments.
"Differences of opinion are part of our democracy. It becomes problematic when other opinions are rejected and discredited on principle," says Kevin Winter.
Let's take a closer look at this. Why is it so important to actively counteract this?
As already explained, extreme attitudes can lead to extreme behaviour. But even if it doesn't get that far, extreme attitudes can hinder constructive discourse and thus also the successful mastering of social challenges. Of course, differences of opinion are part of our democracy and it is good that they can be expressed freely in our society. However, it becomes problematic when other opinions are rejected and discredited on principle. Because that harms social cohesion. At this point, however, it is important to distinguish between opinions and facts. Whether we consider meat consumption to be morally right or wrong, or whether we consider gender-appropriate language to be useful or not, there can in principle be different views on this, which must be respected. There is scientific consensus that climate change is man-made or that COVID-19 is a potentially life-threatening disease. I see a great danger in the tendency to view scientific facts as just another opinion. Because then it becomes difficult to find a common denominator on the basis of which we can discuss.
You recently published a new article in which you shed light on how extreme attitudes can be defused. What exactly did you find out and how can this help us in everyday life?
In our research, we investigated conditions under which people move away from extreme opinions and adopt a more moderate stance. We were able to show that it can be helpful to trigger contradictory thoughts - we are talking about intra-individual conflicts here. Such mental conflicts occur, for example, when we think about personal goals that are difficult to reconcile. For example, when we consider which mode of transport to take on holiday, our goal of protecting the environment may conflict with the goal of arriving at our destination as quickly as possible. Such thoughts occur relatively frequently in everyday life in a natural way. However, we were particularly interested in what happens when such thoughts are deliberately triggered, for example through the use of certain rhetorical devices. One tool that led to more moderate attitudes in our studies was rhetorical questions that encourage people to play out a course of events that deviates from reality - "What if...".
Other researchers were able to show that so-called paradoxical elicitation questions, which essentially correspond to the opinion of the other person but exaggerate it to an extreme, can also lead to a rejection of extreme attitudes. Questions such as "Why do you think that Christmas will soon no longer be celebrated in Germany because of the large number of Muslim refugees?" led to a reduction in xenophobic attitudes. Such rhetorical devices can be used specifically in political communication, but also in everyday conversations. These rhetorical devices are also promising because they are relatively subtle and are not a direct attempt to influence.
Speaking of possible courses of action: In a current series of events organised by Germanwatch in cooperation with the Centre for Transformation Research and Sustainability at the University of Wuppertal (see info box), you and your colleagues are exploring the question of how we as a society can succeed in making the transition to sustainability. The thesis: a lot is technically possible, but many people encounter social and psychological obstacles when implementing these approaches. What obstacles do you see, as evidenced by your research, and what possibilities do we already know of to overcome them?
In our own research to date, we have mainly investigated the extent to which belief in conspiracy theories represents an obstacle to the sustainability transformation - specifically in the context of the expansion of wind energy. In psychological research, a distinction is usually made between belief in a specific conspiracy theory - for example, about the apparent motives behind the expansion of wind energy - and a conspiracy mentality. The latter refers to the general tendency to suspect conspiracies by powerful people as the explanation behind social events.
Our studies show that both - the belief in a specific conspiracy theory about wind turbines as well as the general conspiracy mentality - are linked to a rejection of wind turbines in one's own neighbourhood. The latter in particular is remarkable, as the questions we use to measure the general conspiracy mentality have no reference to wind turbines or climate change. This means that a person's general tendency to believe in conspiracy theories predicts whether they would be more likely to oppose the construction of a wind turbine. We also investigated whether providing arguments in favour of the construction of wind turbines can reduce this rejection. And indeed, our results show that providing information has a positive effect, even among people with a pronounced conspiracy mentality. However, such arguments were less effective among people who already believed in a specific conspiracy theory in the context of wind turbines. It was also shown that the influence of pro-wind power arguments was significantly lower when an opposing opinion was presented at the same time.
On the one hand, our results show that arguments in the context of the sustainability transformation can be effective - even among people who tend to believe in conspiracies. On the other hand, however, we also see that this can be much more difficult in public debates, in which both pro and con arguments are usually mentioned. In our current studies, we are therefore looking at the role played in this context by the dissemination of misinformation that is directed against the expansion of wind energy.
In the focus of science: What role do conspiracy beliefs and mentality play when it comes to wind energy? // Photo Colourbox
What about the power and impact of scientific facts in the context of conspiracy theories and mentality?
In general, psychological research shows that scientific facts - especially about climate change - are often rejected because they contradict one's own world view or because one does not agree with the measures derived from them. However, as already mentioned, our own studies show an openness to rational arguments, even among people with a general tendency to believe in conspiracies. This therefore contradicts public perception to some extent and shows that it is important not to exclude these people, but to include them in the social discourse. However, it becomes problematic when people believe in specific conspiracy theories or false information about wind turbines. The question that therefore arises is how to prevent people from believing such information.
What must knowledge transfer achieve today and in the future in order to ensure responsible participation in social, societal and political processes and decisions?
An education that focuses purely on imparting factual knowledge is not up to the current challenges. Instead, investments should be made in teaching people how to adequately assess the credibility of sources. There are some exciting educational approaches to this. One approach that is seen as particularly promising in research on misinformation is so-called "prebunking". This involves making people aware of possible misinformation and sensitising them to how to deal with it, for example by having them learn the techniques used to spread misinformation.
"The future is now" - do you agree with this statement? What are your thoughts on this in the context of your research?
I think it's always important to consider what impact our actions today can have on future developments. If we don't set the course for a sustainable transformation of our society now, then we won't be able to counter threats such as man-made climate change. The same applies to anti-democratic developments, which we should oppose decisively and at an early stage.
About the person
Dr Kevin Winter studied and completed his doctorate in psychology at the University of Tübingen. During his doctorate, he spent two months as a visiting researcher at the University of Groningen (Netherlands). He worked as a research assistant at the Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien in Tübingen from 2016 to 2023 before moving to the University of Hohenheim in July 2023 to join the Department of Sustainable Business and Economics. In the summer semester of 2024, Winter will take up the Chair of Occupational and Environmental Psychology at the University of Wuppertal.
In his research, he focuses on ways to reduce polarised and extreme attitudes in the context of public debates (for example on topics such as migration or sustainability). He also looks at the negative effects of conspiracy beliefs and ways of counteracting them.
Event information
How do people think about challenges in the context of climate and environmental protection, what solution strategies do they have or refuse to adopt? The "Psychology & Transformation" dialogue series explores these and similar questions. It is organised by the non-governmental organisation Germanwatch and the Centre for Transformation Research and Sustainability, transzent, which is based at the University of Wuppertal.
The series comprises three specialist conferences, each focussing on a different topic. The second event will take place at the University of Wuppertal on Tuesday, 18 June. It will focus on the topic of "Cognition". The aim is to understand how we can overcome psychological and social obstacles on the way to a sustainable society and to share this knowledge with those who are working in practice to make the sustainability transition a success. In this context, Dr Kevin Winter will present findings from psychological research on the topic of attitude change.
At a glance: Find out more about the "Psychology & Transformation" exchange series (press release from 3 June 2024)
