We Don’t Seek Truth, Just Victory — The Psychology of Debate

How Do We Choose Arguments in a Debate?

Scientists set out to examine how we choose arguments during debates. It turns out we don’t necessarily act out of concern for others or because something aligns with our worldview. We do it strategically — to achieve our intended goal. We know how to argue effectively. What we consider sincerity and authenticity may be just a part of our chosen strategy. How did researchers reach these conclusions?

They used a theory suggesting that our moral beliefs are based on several core foundations:

• loyalty – motivating us to stick with our group and uphold its values,
• care/harm avoidance – concern for not hurting others,
• fairness – belief in honesty and equality in treating others,
• purity – keeping the spirit and body free from “moral contamination,”
• authority – focusing on respect for hierarchy, tradition, and social norms.

The scientists focused on two hot-button issues: the legalization of prostitution and the right to abortion.

They conducted seven studies with nearly 3,500 Americans. First, participants expressed their opinions about the legalization of “the world’s oldest profession.” Researchers analyzed what types of arguments they used — whether they emphasized harm, fairness, purity, or authority.

In the following stages, participants rated how much they cared about different moral foundations and filled out questionnaires measuring their general beliefs. These patterns were then checked in the context of the abortion debate as well.

You might like to read: Birth Control Pills Can Change the Female Brain. What Scientists Found

Harm Avoidance — If It Works

Arguments based on “avoiding harm” often turn out to be a strategic tool rather than a true reflection of one’s beliefs. The goal is less about avoiding harm and more about winning the debate.

An example? If someone opposes the legalization of prostitution and hears that legalization increases harm, their belief in harm is reinforced. But if they are told that legalization reduces harm, they pay less attention to harm arguments and emphasize other issues like “purity” or “fairness.”

Researchers also checked whether harm-based arguments are used to persuade people from the opposite political camp. They found that both liberals and conservatives considered harm arguments the most persuasive when trying to change someone else’s opinion. In this way, harm acts as a kind of “shared moral language” that can bridge ideological divides.

“We found that harm concerns are a common theme in discourse around women’s bodily autonomy (studies 1–3). However, harm concerns do not seem to fully underlie body autonomy attitudes in all cases (studies 2a–b and 3a–b). Instead, people strategically adjust their harm-based arguments (compared to justice- and purity-based arguments), depending on what they find useful to justify their existing attitudes (studies 3a–b) and to persuade others to adopt their position (studies 4a–b),” the authors explain in their paper published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

The researchers note that their studies have limitations. The data were collected online and only among Americans, so results might differ in other cultures and in everyday, face-to-face situations.

Read the original article: Nie szukamy prawdy, tylko wygranej. Psychologia debaty zaskakuje