شناخت پژوهی مطالعات سیاسی

شناخت پژوهی مطالعات سیاسی

تحلیل تأثیرات سوگیری‌های شناختی بر تصمیمات و انتخا‌ب‌های سیاسی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده
دانشیار پژوهشگاه مطالعات فرهنگی و اجتماعی وزارت عتف
چکیده
این پژوهش با هدف بررسی این پرسش انجام شده است که چگونه سوگیری‌های شناختی و هویت‌های گروهی بر فرایند تصمیم‌گیری‌های سیاسی افراد تأثیر می‌گذارند؟ در پاسخ به این پرسش، با تکیه‌بر نظریه تفکر دوگانه کانمن (2011) و نظریه هویت اجتماعی تاجفل (1979)، سازوکارهای شناختی تأثیرگذار بر قضاوت‌ها و انتخاب‌های سیاسی به اجمال واکاوی شده‌ است. در این پژوهش از روش مرور اسنادی غیرنظام‌مند و فراتحلیل و از ابزارهای هوش مصنوعی برای گزینش و تحلیل منابع استفاده شده است. بر اساس یافته‌های این پژوهش، اکثر مردم اطلاعات ناسازگار با باورهای گروهی را رد می‌کنند، اثر هویت گروهی بسیار قوی‌تر از تحلیل عقلانی عمل می‌کند، تصمیم‌گیری‌های سریع منجر به قضاوت‌های مبتنی بر چارچوب‌بندی رسانه‌ای و عواطف- احساسات می‌شود و اغلب افراد به‌جای تصحیح، سعی می‌کنند انتخاب‌های اولیه خود را توجیه نمایند. شبکه‌های اجتماعی با ایجاد اتاق‌های پژواک، سوگیری‌های شناختی در تصمیم‌گیری‌ها را تشدید می‌کنند، بحران‌های سیاسی موجب غلبه پاسخ‌های احساسی- عاطفی بر تحلیل منطقی اغلب افراد می‌شود و برای اکثر مردم تصمیم‌گیری‌های سیاسی کمتر از محاسبات عقلانی و بیشتر از فرایندهای هویتی و شناختی- احساسی نشأت می‌گیرد. این وضعیت، مسئولیت‌های اجتماعی مهمی برای انواع رسانه‌ها مبنی بر ضرورت طراحی پیام‌های چندبُعدی خیرخواهانه برای فعال‌سازی امکان انتخاب عقلایی و منطقی، برای نهادهای آموزشی مبنی بر ضرورت آموزش سواد رسانه‌ای و تفکر انتقادی و برای احزاب و گروه‌ها مبنی بر تدبیر درباره پیامدهای بلندمدت تهییج هویتی افراطی، دارد. همه نخبگان و رهبران فکری- سیاسی و گروه‌های مرجع در قبال ماهیت شناخت و انتخاب مردم و فراهم کردن زمینه‌های شکل‌گیری یا اصلاح سوگیری‌های شناختی مسئول‌اند.
کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله English

Cognitive Biases and Political Decision-Making: A Critical Analysis

نویسنده English

Reza Mahdi
ISCS
چکیده English

This study explores how cognitive biases and group identities shape political decision-making, drawing on Kahneman's dual-process theory and Tajfel's social identity theory. Using AI-assisted meta-analysis and documentary review, it finds that people overwhelmingly prioritize group loyalty over rational analysis, rely on emotional heuristics, and double down on initial biases rather than revising them. Social media echo chambers amplify these effects, while political crises further shift decisions from logic to emotion. The findings underscore urgent societal responsibilities: media must craft balanced messaging, educators must teach critical thinking, and political groups must curb extremist identity rhetoric—as intellectual leaders bear ethical accountability for mitigating cognitive biases in public discourse.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

cognitive decision-making
cognitive bias
political partisanship
social identity
groupthink

Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk, Econometrica, (2)47, pp. 263-291.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Tajfel, H. (19678). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations, Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds. (The social psychology of intergroup relations), Brooks/Cole,.33-47.
Haddadian, A., Hashemian, M., Tabakhian, L. (2016). Analysis of identity elements on consumer behavior (based on Tajfel & Jenkins categorization theory). Fourth National Conference on Management, Economics, and Accounting, Tabriz.
Hosseini, S. A. & Ghasemi, A. (2020). Social resources of the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Strategic Studies of Public Policy, (36)10.
Mohammadi, A & Mousavi, S. M. (2020). Dimensions and components of occupational identity: Proposing an assessment model, Journal of Career & Organizational Counseling, (43)12.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47.
Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. University of Chicago Press.
Brader, T. (2006). Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Political Ads Work, University of Chicago Press.
Béchard B., Bodet M. A., Laflamme L. Ouimet, M. (2024). Studying political decision-making as a cognitive process: is it interdisciplinary? A bibliometric analysis, Front. Polit. Sci. 6:1305055, doi: 10.3389/fpos.2024.1305055.
Jin M, Ji L., Peng, H. (2019).The Relationship between Cognitive Abilities and the Decision-Making Process: The Moderating Role of Self-Relevance. Front. Psychol. 10:1892. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01892.
Herrmann, O., Jong A., Pin, R., Schoonbeek, L. (2019). A prospect-theory model of voter turnout. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 168, 362-373.
Kim, Y. (2001). A comparative study of the Abilene Paradox and Groupthink, Public Administration Quarterly, 25(2), 168–189.
Gonzalez, C. (2014).  Decision-Making: A Cognitive Science Perspective, The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Science, Edited by Susan E. F. Chipman, Online Publication Date: Nov 2014, DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199842193.013.6.
Caetano, J., Martins, A. (2017, October 26). Politician-Public Group Dynamics, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication, Retrieved 1 May 2025, from https://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10,1093/acrefore/97801902286613,001,0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-407.
Fiveable. (2024). 7.3 Groupthink – Power and Politics in Organizations. https://fiveable.me/power-and-politics-in-organizations/unit-7/groupthink/study guide / zqUOOhv 7uAwzHrSy.
Wheeler, G. (2024). Bounded Rationality, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2024 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2024/entries/bounded-rationality.
Wason, P.C. (1960). On the Failure to Eliminate Hypotheses in a Conceptual Task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12(3), 129-140.
Allcott, H., Boxell, L., Conway, J., Gentzkow, M., Thaler, M., Yang, D. (2020). Polarization and public health: Partisan differences in social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic. Journal of Public Economics, 191, 1–11.
Zmigrod, L., Eisenberg, I., Bissett, P., Robbins, T., Poldrack, R. (2021). The cognitive and perceptual correlates of ideological attitudes: A data-driven approach, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 376(1822), 1–14.
Ayton, P., Fischer, I. (2004). The hot hand fallacy and the gambler’s fallacy: Two faces of subjective randomness? Memory & Cognition, 32(8), 1369–1378.
Beard, C., Sawyer, A. T., Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Efficacy of attention bias modification using threat and appetitive stimuli: A meta-analytic review. Behavior Therapy, 43(4), 724–740.
Caputo, A. (2016). Overcoming judgmental biases in negotiations: A scenario-based survey analysis on third party direct intervention. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4304–4312.
Bardon, A. (2020). Humans are hardwired to Dismiss Facts that Don’t Fit Their Worldview. The Conversation. Retrieved December 7, 2020, from https://theconversation.com/humans-are-hardwired-to-dismiss-facts-that-dont-fit-their-worldview-127168.
Rachel D., Ashley D., Abagail K., Julie P. (2024).The Effect of Group Dynamics on Individual Ethical Decision Making. Behavioral Research in Accounting 1 March 2024; 36 (1): 1–19.
Wang, Y. & Ruhe, G. (2007). The Cognitive Process of Decision Making, International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence, 1(2), 73-85, April-June 2007, DOI: 10.4018/jcini.2007040105.
Lerman, Amy E. & Acland, D. (2020). United in States of Dissatisfaction: Confirmation Bias Across the Partisan Divide, American Politics Research 2020, 48(2), 227–237.
(Lerman & Acland, 2020)
Bajpai, R., & Sáez, L. (2022). Winning big: The political logic of winning elections with large margins in India. India Review, 21(1), 21-52.
Beri, D., & Reddy, K. J. (2022). A cognitive insight into political minds: Exploring cognitive biases among Indian political representatives. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Blanco, F. (2022). Cognitive bias. Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior, 1487-1493.
McGraw, K. M. (2000). Contributions of the cognitive approach to political psychology. Political Psychology, 21(4), 805-832. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895x.00217.
Schreiber, D. (2007). Political cognition as social cognition. The Affect Effect, 48-70. 
Supplemental material for the partisan mind: Is extreme political partisanship related to cognitive inflexibility? (2019). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
Vaishnav, M. (2019, April 4). Religious nationalism and India’s future - The BJP in power: Indian democracy and religious nationalism. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/04/04/religious-nationalism-and-india-s-future-pub-78703.
Zmigrod, L., Rentfrow, P. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2018). Cognitive underpinnings of nationalistic ideology in the context of Brexit. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(19). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708960115.
Zmigrod, L., Eisenberg, I. W., Bissett, P., Robbins, T. W., & Poldrack, R. (2020). A data-driven analysis of the cognitive and perceptual attributes of ideological attitudes. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dgaxr.
Fiveable. (2024, July 31). 17.2 Prospect Theory and Loss Aversion – Honors Economics. https://library.fiveable.me/honors-economics/unit-17/prospect-theory-loss-aversion/study-guide/sRm5SoPNnfOBtOdk.
Maali Q. Khader (2023). Politics in the Boardroom: Navigating Power Dynamics and Decision-Making Introducti, Middle East institute of directors, MEIoD.org
Dominic D.P.J. (2020). Strategic Instincts: The Adaptive Advantages of Cognitive Biases in International Politics, Princeton University Pub.
Shannon, B. McGee, Z. & Jones, B. (2019, June 25). Bounded Rationality and Cognitive Limits in Political Decision Making, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.961.
Hrabina, J. (2023). JUST WARS, OR JUST FALLACIES: THE CASE FOR IDEOLOGIES, COGNITIVE BIAS, AND WARS, The Drfince Horizon Journal, https://tdhj.org/blog/post/ideologies-cognitive-bias-wars-fallacies.
Baron, J. (2009).  Cognitive biases in moral judgments that affect political behavior, Synthese, Springer, DOI 10.1007/s11229-009-9478-z.
Baron, J. (2010). Cognitive Biases in Moral Judgments That Affect Political Behavior, Synthese Vol. 172, No. 1, pp. 7-35.
Wildfeuer, A.G. (2024). Rationality and Bounded Rationality. In: Chacko Chennattuserry, J., Deshpande, M., Hong, P. (eds) Encyclopedia of New Populism and Responses in the 21st Century. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9859-0_287-1.
Druckman, J. N., Kang, S., Chu, J., N. Stagnaro, M., Voelkel, J. G., Mernyk, J. S. & Willer, R. (2023). Correcting misperceptions of out-partisans decreases American legislators’ support for undemocratic practices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(23), e2301836120.
Ehrlinger, J., Gilovich, T., Ross, L. (2005). Peering into the bias blind spot: People’s assessments of bias in themselves and others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(5), 680–692.
Littrell, S., Fugelsang, J. A. (2023). Bullshit blind spots: The roles of miscalibration and information processing in bullshit detection. Thinking & Reasoning, 1–30.
Littrell & Fugelsang, 2023
Baron, J. (2010). Cognitive biases in moral judgments that affect political behavior. Synthese 172, 7–35 (2010).
Jamieson, K. H. & Cappella, J. N. (2008). Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton University Press.
Sunstein, C. R. (2017). Republic: divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-17551-5OCLC 958799819.
Sunstein, C. R. (2017). Impeachment: A Citizen's Guide. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-98379-3.
دوره 2، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 5
فصل تابستان
تابستان 1404
صفحه 26-47

  • تاریخ دریافت 17 اردیبهشت 1404
  • تاریخ بازنگری 15 خرداد 1404
  • تاریخ پذیرش 11 تیر 1404