Anzeige
Mehr »
Login
Donnerstag, 02.05.2024 Börsentäglich über 12.000 News von 685 internationalen Medien
"Special Situation"-Aktie mit Multi-Tenbagger-Potenzial im heißesten Rohstoff-Markt
Anzeige

Indizes

Kurs

%
News
24 h / 7 T
Aufrufe
7 Tage

Aktien

Kurs

%
News
24 h / 7 T
Aufrufe
7 Tage

Xetra-Orderbuch

Fonds

Kurs

%

Devisen

Kurs

%

Rohstoffe

Kurs

%

Themen

Kurs

%

Erweiterte Suche
PR Newswire
34 Leser
Artikel bewerten:
(0)

Irrational Thinking is Driving the EU Referendum Result, Study Shows

LONDON, June 22, 2016 /PRNewswire/ --

New research from 'The Online Privacy Foundation' shows that a voter's ability to think rationally about the evidence for leaving or remaining in the EU depends on whether or not that evidence supports their existing views.

Most people are unable to interpret a set of numbers correctly if the evidence doesn't support their existing and usually psychologically biased position on a topic. This happens to voters on both sides of the referendum debate. But there are differing levels of this phenomenon depending on which side of the debate someone is instinctively drawn to.

Research organisation 'The Online Privacy Foundation' has released interim findings from a series of Facebook studies examining the psychological biases, personality traits and attitudes of 8,995 voters in this week's Referendum on the UK's EU membership.

For instance, in the context of the debate about immigration and the EU, given a set of 'fake' numerical evidence about the effects of immigration on crime:

  • 'Leave' voters do significantly worse at interpreting the numbers than 'Remain' voters if those numbers show that immigration decreases crime. But they return to their normal performance if the numbers show that immigration increases crime.
  • 'Remain' voters typically have a much better grasp of how to accurately interpret statistics and numerical information. But, they also slip in performance if numerical evidence runs counter to their views. When the numbers show that immigration increases crime, they no longer beat the 'Leavers' in doing the maths.

The Online Privacy Foundation also found that voters:

  • Overestimated their ability on a logic test to be much higher than it really was.
  • Are likely to discount the validity of a numerical test if they are told voters with opposing views tend to get more questions right in the test.
  • Make predictably riskier choices depending on how the choices are phrased.

The study, one of ten the organization has conducted on the EU Referendum, replicated research by Yale Professor, Dan Kahan and observed the same phenomenon. Kahan's research was dubbed 'The Most Depressing Brain Finding Ever'.

Interim findings and additional material on are available via the organisation's website: https://www.onlineprivacyfoundation.org/opf-research/psychological-biases/psychology-and-the-eu-referendum/

About Online Privacy Foundation

https://www.onlineprivacyfoundation.org/about/

Media contacts:
Chris Sumner
Researcher & Co-Founder Online Privacy Foundation
Email: chris@onlineprivacyfoundation.org

Lithium vs. Palladium - Zwei Rohstoff-Chancen traden
In diesem kostenfreien PDF-Report zeigt Experte Carsten Stork interessante Hintergründe zu den beiden Rohstoffen inkl. . Zudem gibt er Ihnen konkrete Produkte zum Nachhandeln an die Hand, inkl. WKNs.
Hier klicken
© 2016 PR Newswire
Werbehinweise: Die Billigung des Basisprospekts durch die BaFin ist nicht als ihre Befürwortung der angebotenen Wertpapiere zu verstehen. Wir empfehlen Interessenten und potenziellen Anlegern den Basisprospekt und die Endgültigen Bedingungen zu lesen, bevor sie eine Anlageentscheidung treffen, um sich möglichst umfassend zu informieren, insbesondere über die potenziellen Risiken und Chancen des Wertpapiers. Sie sind im Begriff, ein Produkt zu erwerben, das nicht einfach ist und schwer zu verstehen sein kann.