The Partisan Brain: How Dissonant Science Messages Lead Conservatives and Liberals to (Dis)Trust Science

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

Volumn 658, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 36-66

  Nisbet, Erik C ^a   Cooper, Kathryn E ^a   Garrett, R Kelly ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

affect; institutional trust; motivated reasoning; persuasion; political polarization; science communication

Indexed keywords

EID: 84922826238     PISSN: 00027162     EISSN: 15523349     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0002716214555474     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Braman Donald,Kahan Dan M.,Peters Ellen,Wittlin Maggie,Slovic Paul.The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks.Nature Climate Change. 2012;2:732-35
2. Brehm Sharon S.,Brehm Jack W.Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1981:
3. Byrne Sahara,Hart P. Sol.The boomerang effect: A synthesis of findings and a preliminary theoretical framework.Communication Yearbook. 2009;33:3-37
4. Carney Dana R.,Jost John T.,Gosling Samuel D.,Potter Jeff.The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind.Political Psychology. 2008;29 (6): 807-40
5. Chaiken ShellySocial influence: The Ontario symposium. Zanna Mark P.Olson James M.Herman C. Peter, ed. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1987:3-39.
6. Cobb Roger W.,Elder Charles D.Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda-building. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1983:
7. Cohen Geoffrey L.Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003;85 (5): 808-22
8. Dillard James P.,Shen Lijiang.On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication.Communication Monographs. 2005;72 (2): 144-68
9. Dodd Michael D.,Balzer Amanda,Jacobs Carly M.,Gruszczynski Michael W.,Smith Kevin B.,Hibbing John R.The political Left rolls with the good and the political Right rolls with the bad: Connecting physiology and cognition to preferences.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. 2012;367 (1589): 640-49
10. Dunlap Riley E.,McCright Aaron M.A widening gap: Republican and Democratic views on climate change.Environment. 2008;50:26-35
11. Dunlap Riley E.,McCright Aaron M.Oxford handbook of climate change and society. Dryzek John S.Norgaard Richard B.Schlosberg David, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011:144-60.
12. Feldman Lauren,Maibach Edward W.,Roser-Renouf Connie,Leiserowitz Anthony.Climate on cable: The nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC.The International Journal of Press/Politics. 2012;17 (1): 3-31
13. Festinger LeonA theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1957:
14. Gaines Brian J.,Kuklinski James H.,Quirk Paul J.,Peyton Buddy,Verkuilen Jay.Same facts, different interpretations: Partisan motivation and opinions on Iraq.Journal of Politics. 2007;69 (4): 957-74
15. Garrett R. Kelly,Stroud Natalie J.Partisan paths to exposure diversity: Differences in pro- and counter-attitudinal news consumption.Journal of Communication. Forthcoming;:
16. Gauchat Gordon.Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010.American Sociological Review. 2012;77 (2): 167-87
17. Hart P. Sol,Nisbet Erik C.Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies.Communication Research. 2012;39 (6): 701-23
18. Hayes Andrew F.An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2013:
19. Hilgartner Stephen,Bosk Charles L.The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model.The American Journal of Sociology. 1988;94 (1): 53-78
20. Hindman Douglas Blanks.Mass media flow and the differential distribution of politically disputed beliefs: The belief gap hypothesis.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 2009;86:790-808
21. Hmielowski Jay D.,Feldman Lauren,Myers Teresa A.,Leiserowitz Anthony,Maibach Edward.An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming.Public Understanding of Science. 2013;:
22. Iyengar Shanto,Sood Gaurav,Lelkes Yphtach.Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization.Public Opinion Quarterly. 2012;76 (3): 405-31
23. Jacks Julia Zuwerink,Cameron Kimberly A.Strategies for resisting persuasion.Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 2003;25 (2): 145-61
24. Jasanoff Sheila.Biology and the Bill of Rights: Can science reframe the Constitution?.American Journal of Law and Medicine. 1987;13:249-89
25. Johnson Blair T.,Eagly Alice H.Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin. 1989;106 (2): 290-314
26. Jost John T.,Amodio David M.Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence.Motivation and Emotion. 2012;36:55-64
27. Jost John T.,Glaser Jack,Kruglanski Arie W.,Sulloway Frank J.Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.Psychological Bulletin. 2003;129 (3): 339-75
28. Kahan Dan M.Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection.Judgment and Decision Making. 2013;8 (4): 407-24
29. Kahan Dan M.,Braman Donald.Cultural cognition and public policy.Yale Law & Policy Review. 2006;24 (1): 149-72
30. Kahan Dan M.,Peters Ellen,Wittlin Maggie,Slovic Paul,Ouellete Lisa Larrimore,Braman Donald,Mandel Gregory.The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks.Nature Climate Change. 2012;10 (2): 732-35
31. Knowles Eric S.,Linn Jay A.Resistance to persuasion. Knowles Eric S.Linn Jay A., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2004:3-11.
32. Krosnick Jon A.,Holbrook Allyson L.,Visser Penny S.The impact of the fall 1997 debate about global warming on American public opinion.Public Understanding of Science. 2000;9:239-60
33. Kruglanski Arie W.The psychology of closed mindedness. New York, NY: Psychology Press; 2004:
34. Kunda Ziva.The case for motivated reasoning.Psychological Bulletin. 1990;108 (3): 480-98
35. Leeper Thomas J.,Slothuus Rune.Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation.Advances in Political Psychology. 2014;35:129-56
36. Lewandowsky Stephan,Ecker Ullrich K. H.,Seifert Colleen M.,Schwarz Norbert,Cook John.Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing.Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2012;13 (3): 106-31
37. Lodge Milton,Taber CharlesElements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality. Lupia ArthurMcCubbins Matthew D., ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2000:183-213.
38. Lord Charles G.,Ross Lee,Lepper Mark R.Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: Effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1979;37 (11): 2098-2109
39. McCright Aaron M.,Dentzman Katherine,Charters Meghan,Dietz Thomas.The influence of political ideology on trust in science.Environmental Research Letters. 2013;8:1-9
40. McGuire William J.Advances in experimental and social psychology. Berkowitz Leonard, ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1964:192-229.
41. Mooney ChrisThe Republican war on science. New York, NY: Basic Books; 2005:
42. Mooney Chris.The science of why we don’t believe science.Mother Jones. 2011;:
43. Mooney ChrisThe Republican brain: The science of why they deny science and reality. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2012:
44. Moyer-Gusé Emily,Nabi Robin L.Explaining the persuasive effects of narrative in an entertainment television program: Overcoming resistance to persuasion.Human Communication Research. 2010;36:25-51
45. Nabi Robin L.,Moyer-Gusé Emily,Byrne Sahara.All joking aside: A serious investigation into the persuasive effect of funny social issue messages.Communication Monographs. 2007;74:29-54
46. Nam H. Hannah,Jost John T.,Van Bavel Jay J.“Not for all the tea in China!” Political ideology and the avoidance of dissonance.PLoS One. 2013;8 (4):
47. National Science Board. 2014. Science and engineering indicators 2014. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Available from www.nsf.gov.
48. National Science Foundation. 2012. Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. Science and Engineering Indicators 2012. Washington, DC. Available from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/pdf/c07.pdf.
49. Nelkin Dorothy.The political impact of technical expertise.Social Studies of Science. 1975;5:34-54
50. Nelkin DorothyControversy: Politics of technical decisions. Nelkin Dorothy, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1992:vii-ix.
51. Nisbet Erik C.,Cooper Kathryn E.,Ellithorpe Morgan.Ignorance or bias? Evaluating the ideological and informational drivers of communication gaps about climate change.Public Understanding of Science. Forthcoming;:
52. Nisbet Matthew C.The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2005;17 (1): 90-112
53. NisbetMatthew C.2011. Climate shift: Clear vision for the next decade of public debate. Washington, DC: American University, School of Communication. Available from http://climateshiftproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ClimateShift_report_June2011.pdf.
54. Nisbet Matthew C.,Huge Mike.Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate: Managing power and participation through the press/policy connection.International Journal of Press/Politics. 2006;11 (2): 3-40
55. Nisbet Matthew C.,Markowitz Ezra M.Understanding public opinion in debates over biomedical research: Looking beyond political partisanship to focus on beliefs about science and society.PLoS One. 2014;9 (2):
56. Nyhan Brendan,Reifler Jason.When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions.Political Behavior. 2010;32 (2): 303-30
57. Oreskes Naomi,Conway Erik M.Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press; 2010:
58. Petty Richard E.,Cacioppo John T.Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1986:
59. Continued support for Keystone XL Pipeline. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2013a:
60. GOP deeply divided over climate change. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2013b:
61. Public’s views on human evolution. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2013c:
62. Priest Susanna Hornig,Bonfadelli Heinz,Rusanen Maria.The “trust gap” hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors.Risk Analysis. 2003;23 (4): 751-66
63. Rains Stephen A.The nature of psychological reactance revisited: A meta-analytic review.Human Communication Research. 2013;39 (1): 47-73
64. Sarewitz Daniel.The rightful place of science.Issues in Science and Technology. 2013;25 (4): 89-94
65. Scheufele Dietram A.Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action. Turney Jon, ed. London: The Wellcome Trust; 2006:20-25.
66. Schwarz NorbertHandbook of theories of social psychology. Van Lange Paul A. M.Kruglanski Arie W.Higgins Tory, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2011:289-308.
67. Schwarz Norbert,Sanna Lawrence J.,Skurnik Ian,Yoon Carolyn.Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of setting people straight: Implications for debiasing public information campaigns.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2007;39:127-61
68. Shook Natalie J.,Fazio Russell H.Political ideology, exploration of novel stimuli, and attitude formation.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2009;45 (4): 995-98
69. Slater Michael D.,Rouner Donna.Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion.Communication Theory. 2002;12:173-91
70. Slothuus Rune,de Vreese Claes H.Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects.The Journal of Politics. 2010;72 (3): 630-45
71. Smith Mary John.The effects of threats to attitudinal freedom as a function of message quality and initial receiver attitude.Communication Monographs. 1977;44 (3): 196-206
72. Taber Charles S.,Cann Damon,Kucsova Simona.The motivated processing of political arguments.Political Behavior. 2009;31:137-55
73. Taber Charles S.,Lodge Milton.Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs.American Journal of Political Science. 2006;50 (3): 755-69
74. Watson David,Clark Lee Anna,Tellegen Auke.Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1988;54 (6): 1063-70
75. Weeks Brian E.,Garrett R. Kelly.Electoral consequences of political rumors: Motivated reasoning, candidate rumors, and vote choice during the 2008 U.S. presidential election.International Journal of Public Opinion. Forthcoming;:
76. Wells Gary L.,Windschitl Paul D.Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1999;25:1115-25