dc.contributorBenoit, Jean Pierre. London Buisness School
dc.contributorDubra, Juan. Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
dc.creatorBenoit, Jean Pierre
dc.creatorDubra, Juan
dc.date.accessioned2022-04-22T18:50:19Z
dc.date.accessioned2023-08-24T17:17:03Z
dc.date.available2022-04-22T18:50:19Z
dc.date.available2023-08-24T17:17:03Z
dc.date.created2022-04-22T18:50:19Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifierhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12806/1343
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/8424823
dc.description.abstractNumerous experiments have demonstrated the possibility of attitude polarization.For instance, Lord, Ross & Leper (1979) found that death penalty advocates becamemore convinced of the deterrent e§ect of the death penalty while opponents becomemore convinced of the lack of a deterrent e§ect, after being presented with the samestudies. However, there is an unclear understanding of just what these experimentsshow and what their implications are. We argue that attitude polarization is consistentwith an unbiased evaluation of evidence. Moreover, attitude polarization is even to beexpected under many circumstances, in particular those under which experiments areconducted. We also undertake a critical re-examination of several well-known papers.
dc.publisherUniversidad de Montevideo, Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales y Economía, Departamento de Economía
dc.relationDocumentos de trabajo del Departamento de Economía
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional
dc.rightshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.rightsAbierto
dc.subjectAttitude polarization
dc.subjectConfirmation bias
dc.subjectBayesian decision making
dc.titleAttitude polarization: theory and evidence
dc.typeDocumentos de trabajo


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución