Robert E. Peary and Motivated Reasoning

On July 6th, 1908, Robert E. Peary set off from New York on an expedition to be the first to reach the North Pole. On April 7th of 1909, he claimed to have reached the pole. Upon his return, he found that another man, Frederick A. Cook claimed to have reached the pole the preceding year. With Peary also claiming to have reached the pole, upon investigation, Cook's account of his journey was quickly denounced by a variety of experts as false, and he was known nationally as a fraud. Both the New York Times and the National Geographic Society (both having funded Peary's journey) announced that indeed, Peary was the first man to have traveled to the North Pole. Peary was granted the position of Rear Admiral by the U.S. Navy, and received an appropriate pension. However, a century later, Peary's account too is widely regarded to be false.

How could one of the greatest scientific frauds in history have been so widely reported as fact? Despite significant evidence to disprove Peary's accomplishment, how could so many have believed it to be truth?

In 2004, a number of studies were conducted regarding partisan political reasoning in relation to the 2004 election race between George W. Bush and John Kerry. The results were indicative of a phenomena that Freud had identified nearly 100 years ago, but had never been substantiated: that of "defense", or more contemporarily known as "motivated reasoning".

According to a study by Drew Weston (et. al), motivated reasoning is "the tendency to draw conclusions consonant with motives and desired emotional responses." Essentially this means that individuals tend to make many decisions to avoid potentially negative feelings, or to gain positive ones.

The study focused on people strongly affiliated with either the Republican or Democratic party. Upon viewing strongly contradictory statements (occasionally fictional) from both their preferred candidate and the opposing candidate, and their reaction to the information was recorded. They were then shown a statement that reconciled the contradiction, and their reaction was tested again.

While the subjects could easily rationalize the information presented to them regarding an opposing candidate, when it came to their favored party, sections of the brain that specifically handle social emotion and moral evaluation activated and determined response.

In a separate study that focused on the ways in which people rationalize conflicting evidence challenging their belief, there were several ways in which subjects accounted for their belief. This particular study, also conducted in 2004, centered around whether or not the subjects believed Saddam Hussein was in any way responsible for the events of 9/11/01, despite solid evidence being publicized that he was uninvolved.

The study found that only 22% of people surveyed believed that there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein with 9/11. Of the remaining 78% of subjects, only 2% changed their mind about the link when presented with overwhelming evidence. The majority of the respondents participated in "Attitude Bolstering" (quickly switching the topic to a positive reason for the war, 32%) or downright denial of the evidence (16%).

This inherently human trait is clearly nothing new, and the story of Peary and Cook is certainly a case of this phenomena. Despite glaring gaps in the information he presented, both the New York Times and the National Geographic Society not only widely reported his accomplishment, but entirely substantiated his claims internationally. Both of these reputable institutions had invested in his journey from the outset, and, possibly because of that investment, as well as perhaps the revelation that Cook was a fraud, they continued to propagate the myth of his journey.

This is in no way an isolated incident in history, nor will this phenomena fade away, but it is very important that we understand that it exists and that it can be dangerous. If anything, these studies should pressure politicians and religious figures to be ever more honest with the facts they disseminate, but once again, as history has shown us, it is unlikely that this will be the case.

Drew, Weston, Blagov Pavel S., Harenski Kieth, Kilts Clint, and Hamann Stephan. "An fMRI study of motivated reasoning Partisan political reasoning in the U.S. Presidential Election ." (2004): Web. 13 Sep 2009. .

Prasad, Monica, Perrin Andrew, Bezila Kieran, Hoffman Steve, and et al. . “There Must Be a Reason”: Osama, Saddam, and Inferred Justification." (2004): Web. 13 Sep 2009. .

Tierney, John. "Who Was First at the North Pole?." the New York Times 07 Sept 2009: Web. 13 Sep 2009. .

Tierney, John. "A Clash of Polar Frauds and Those Who Believe ." the New York Times 07 Sept 2009: Web. 13 Sep 2009. .