vincing. All of this information, including the
study description they
first read was fictional. Half the participants
were told that of the
two studies they were
being presented with,
one supported the death
penalty as a deterrent
and the other didn’t.
The other half was told
the same thing but for
the opposite studies.
Regardless whether the
participants were for
or against the death
penalty they all slightly shifted their opinion
towards the first study
they read. However,
once they had access
to the more detailed
information all the par-
37
ticipants returned to
their original viewpoint.
Participants had picked
out from the detailed
information anything
that corroborated their
original viewpoint and
used this as evidence
that they were right,
rating the study that
agreed with their view as
more convincing and as