Reactive Devaluation: What It Is And How It Affects The Mind And Society
Phenomena known as cognitive biases (or cognitive prejudices) occur quite frequently in the thinking of human beings, which cause an alteration in the process of that information that is captured through the senses, so that a distortion, an interpretation that is inconsistent or illogical about the available information.
Reactive devaluation is one of those cognitive biases that usually occurs in the political sphere, and which refers to those cases in which supporters of a particular party or ideology have a tendency to devalue a proposal when they know that It has been designed by a political party opposed to yours, while if it were proposed by your party, a greater percentage of people would be in favor.
In this article we will see what this bias known as reactive devaluation consists of and what were the experiments that allowed us to discover this bias, as well as we will see in which contexts it is usually most influential.
It was the researchers Lee Ross and Constance Stillinger who in 1988 proposed the bias known as “reactive devaluation” based on an experiment they had carried out.
Reactive devaluation is a cognitive bias that tends to occur more frequently in the political context, and is based on the fact that politicians, supporters of a party or members of a country that is in social, economic or social conflict. armed with another country, have a tendency, which could become unconscious, to devalue a proposal when they know that it has been designed by a political party contrary to their own or for the country that is in conflict with your country.
In other words, reactive devaluation is a bias that refers to the tendency that some people may have to disparage proposals that have been devised by a political party with an ideology opposite to that of their party, especially when that party in that moment is being seen in a negative way on a social or political level for some reason that has caused controversy. This cognitive bias also can cause a considerable barrier within politics when negotiating on any relevant issue
Stillinger, Ross, and their collaborators published their initial experiment on reactive devaluation in 1988, in which they asked American passers-by whether they would favor a bilateral political program in which measures would be taken to reducing the manufacture of nuclear weapons. When the researchers said that this proposal came from the president of the United States Ronald Reagan, 90% of those surveyed were in favor of it or maintained an impartial position.
When respondents were told that the proposal to reduce the manufacture of nuclear weapons came from a group of American political analysts, without specifying who it was or what political party they supported, there was also a high percentage of respondents who agreed. were in favor of taking this measure (approximately 80%).
On the other hand, when the people surveyed were told that this measure to reduce the manufacture of nuclear weapons came from Mikhail Gorbachev, who was then the general secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, only 44 % were in favor or from a neutral position towards this measure; while 56% thought that it would not be favorable for the United States and that it could benefit the Soviet Union, which revealed the reactive devaluation bias
There were three studies, related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to analyze the tendency of political antagonists to suspend peace proposals. In these experiments, the researchers presented the experimental participants, all of whom were of Israeli origin, with a peace proposal that had actually been proposed by Israel; while The same peace proposal was presented to other participants but telling them that it had been proposed by Palestine.
The end result was that in the cases in which the participants had been told that the peace proposal had been devised by Israel, they were in favor in a notably higher percentage of cases than in the group of subjects to whom He had been told that this proposal had been devised by Palestine.
These studies, which were carried out based on the conflict between Israel and Palestine, serve to demonstrate and further expand the understanding at a theoretical level of this phenomenon related to the cognitive biases of human thought, reactive devaluation, thus demonstrating the barrier that this bias can create at the time of resolve conflicts in politics and in the real world around different parts of the world
Similar cases, which demonstrate a reactive devaluation, are not strange to see in other countries, such as in Spain, where it has been seen that on several occasions a political party that when it was in opposition had always been against a measure. policy proposed by the government that existed at that time and years later when they are the ones in government who approve or even propose that same measure, despite the fact that years ago they were against another political party implementing it.
everyday examples
It is inevitable that all people face various conflicts in various areas of our lives, so having the ability to cordially resolve these disputes is very important, although at the same time it is not easy to cultivate it, which is why for many people the devaluation Reaction can be an obstacle when it comes to resolving conflicts, since if they are not able to listen and take them into account objectively, they could end up in a harmful situation and in costly circumstances for both parties
Let’s give a hypothetical example so that we better understand the cognitive bias of reactive devaluation. Let’s imagine the case of some supporters of a political party who we surveyed about their opinion that another party wants to implement a measure to allocate more money for public health, so that there are more health workers who can care for citizens (doctors). , psychologists, nurses, etc.). Then, to other sympathizers of that same party, we would make the same proposal, but this time telling them that this measure has been devised by their own political party.
If it were the case that these sympathizers would show a higher percentage in favor of taking this measure when they think it has been proposed by their political party, than in those cases in which they have been told that it was proposed by a party with a ideology different from yours, we would be facing an example of reactive devaluation.
The reactive devaluation It can also be seen among some sports fans, such as football, with the classic debate between who is better, Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo. In most cases, Barcelona Football Club fans will say that Messi is the best footballer; while the majority of Real Madrid fans will consider Cristiano Ronaldo to be the best, and may even discredit the opposing team’s player.
With this it is worth saying that not everyone thinks this way and that there are even many who, from a more impartial and perhaps even objective perspective, do not enter into this debate or position themselves in favor of either, claiming that both are very good footballers with a prolific career without detracting from either of them.
The same thing happens in politics, where Not everyone is unconditionally in favor of a party there are many people who analyze the proposals from a critical and objective point of view, showing themselves in favor of the proposals of parties opposed to the one they follow when they seem good for their country.
These are just some hypothetical examples where the concept of reactive devaluation influences, which are probably familiar to us, and which can serve to explain in more detail a cognitive bias such as reactive devaluation that can occur quite frequently in various contexts and in different people. .
