Kappes, A., Harvey, A. H., Lohrenz, T., Montague, P. R., & Sharot, T. (2020). Confirmation bias in the utilization of others’ opinion strength. Nature neuroscience, 23(1), 130-137.
The first source was published within the last ten years. The first source examined the impact of bias due to people’s tendency to ignore the information. According to Kappes et al. (2020), this is because “Humans are inclined to discount information that contradicts past judgments” (p. 3). The paper studies the fundamental foundations of human belief formation. The studies included people divided into pairs to oppose their arguments. People had different random qualities for the purity of the experiment. This source is directly related to the study because it helps to understand how bias affects and why it is difficult for people to accept someone else’s point of view. In addition, the question of whether individuals are inclined to trust the facts of a third party if they contradict the arguments of two entirely arguing persons is essential for the study. The first source lacks a comparison of the gradation of arguments with high and low values. Questions regarding what influences people’s acceptance of strong or weak arguments may be resolved in future research.
Talluri, B. C., Urai, A. E., Tsetsos, K., Usher, M., & Donner, T. H. (2018). Confirmation bias through selective overweighting of choice-consistent evidence. Current Biology, 28(19), 3128-3135.
The second source has been published within the last ten years. In this work, the influence of people’s decisions on forming prejudices was studied. According to Talluri et al. (2018), the areas of the brain responsible for accumulating evidence and making decisions remain active for a long time and feed processed information through coded channels. In this regard, researchers are studying the cause of erroneous biases. The study included participants who used different types of argumentation and had different sets of qualities. In addition, all participants chose either true facts or not, depending on how it would be easier for them to convince the interlocutor. The second source is related to research in that it helps to clarify the relationship between prejudice and overestimation of the evidence provided. In addition, it can serve as qualified information to get an idea of why people are not always ready to listen to an opponent in an argument. Research on the second source lacks concrete examples of situations where people tended to trust overpriced arguments. In future research, the question of the influence of information processing in the brain may be resolved depending on how the argument is presented.
Hameleers, M., & Van der Meer, T. G. (2020). Misinformation and polarization in a high-choice media environment: How effective are political fact-checkers?. Communication Research, 47(2), 227-250.
The third source was published during the last ten years. This work studied the influence of fake facts on how people perceive information. Hameleers & Van der Meer (2020) claim that in recent years there have been many sites with false information that pass it off as accurate. This poses a risk of prejudice and examining how this situation influences the effect of confirming cases with high and low values is crucial. In the third source, the experiment included 550 people who were tested for attention. The characteristics of participants can be divided into three groups according to age, gender, and level of education. The third source is related to research because it helps to understand which people are most likely to trust fake news regardless of how valuable the case is. It shows how the variables listed above affect the choice of facts individuals prioritize. The study of the third source lacks a conclusion about how people make a choice to believe arguments from unverified sources or not. Future research may address the question of why people are reluctant to verify the facts they learn about.
References
Hameleers, M., & Van der Meer, T. G. (2020). Misinformation and polarization in a high-choice media environment: How effective are political fact-checkers?. Communication Research, 47(2), 227-250. Web.
Kappes, A., Harvey, A. H., Lohrenz, T., Montague, P. R., & Sharot, T. (2020). Confirmation bias in the utilization of others’ opinion strength. Nature neuroscience, 23(1), 130-137. Web.
Talluri, B. C., Urai, A. E., Tsetsos, K., Usher, M., & Donner, T. H. (2018). Confirmation bias through selective overweighting of choice-consistent evidence. Current Biology, 28(19), 3128-3135. Web.