Erratum: Does Counter-Attitudinal Information Cause Backlash? Results from Three Large Survey Experiments (British Journal of Political Science (2018) DOI: 10.1017/S0007123418000327);Does Counter-Attitudinal Information Cause Backlash? Results from Three Large Survey Experiments

British Journal of Political Science

Volumn 50, Issue 4, 2020, Pages 1497-1515

  Guess, Andrew ^a   Coppock, Alexander ^b  

^a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

attitude polarization; backfire effect; motivated reasoning; public opinion

Indexed keywords

EID: 85053460499     PISSN: 00071234     EISSN: 14692112     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0007123419000024     Document Type: Erratum

References (66)

1. Ansolabehere S, Rodden J and Snyder JM (2008) The strength of issues: using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. American Political Science Review 102 (2): 215-232.
2. Arceneaux K and Johnson M (2013) Changing Minds Or Changing Channels?: Partisan News in an Age of Choice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3. Bakshy E, Messing S and Adamic LA (2015) Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348 (6239): 1130-1132.
4. Barberá P (2014) How social media reduces mass political polarization. Evidence from Germany, Spain, and the U. S. Working Paper.
5. Bartels L (2002) Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior 24 (2): 117-150.
6. Benoît J-P and Dubra J (2016) A theory of rational attitude polarization. Available at SSRN 2529494.
7. Berinsky A, Huber G and Lenz G (2012) Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon. com's Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis 20 (3): 351-368.
8. Berinsky AJ (2015) Rumors and health care reform: experiments in political misinformation. British Journal of Political Science 47 (2): 1-22.
9. Berry JM and Sobieraj S (2013) The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New Incivility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Bishin BG et al. (2016) Opinion backlash and public attitudes: Are political advances in gay rights counterproductive? American Journal of Political Science 60 (3): 625-648.
11. Buhrmester MD, Kwang T and Gosling SD (2011) Amazon's Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet highquality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6 (1): 3-5.
12. Bullock JG (2009) Partisan bias and the Bayesian ideal in the study of public opinion. The Journal of Politics 71 (3): 1109-1124.
13. Bullock JG et al. (2015) Partisan bias in factual beliefs about politics. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 10 (4): 519-578.
14. Chandler J, Mueller P and Paolacci G (2014) Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behavior Research Methods 46 (1): 112-130.
15. Chipman HA, George EI and McCulloch RE (2007) Bayesian ensemble learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19, 265.
16. Chipman HA, George EI and McCulloch RE (2010) BART: Bayesian additive regression trees. Annals of Applied Statistics 4 (1): 266-298.
17. Clifford S and Jerit J (2014) Is there a cost to convenience? An experimental comparison of data quality in laboratory and online studies. Journal of Experimental Political Science 1 (2): 120-131.
18. Coppock A (2016) Randomizr: Easy to use tools for common forms of random assignment and sampling. R package version 0. 5. 0.
19. Coppock A (2017) Generalizing from survey experiments conducted on Mechanical Turk: a replication approach. Political Science Research and Methods. doi: 10. 1017/psrm. 2018. 10.
20. Coppock A and Green DP (2015) Assessing the correspondence between experimental results obtained in the lab and field: a review of recent social science research. Political Science Research and Methods 3 (1): 113-131.
21. Druckman JN (2012) The politics of motivation. Critical Review 24 (2): 199-216.
22. Druckman JN, Levendusky MS and McLain A (2018) No need to watch: how the effects of partisan media can spread via inter-personal discussions. American Journal of Political Science 62 (1): 99-112.
23. Gelman A and Loken E (2016) The statistical crisis in science. The Best Writing on Mathematics 2015, 305.
24. Gerber A and Green D (1999) Misperceptions about perceptual bias. Annual Review of Political Science 2 (1): 189-210.
25. Green DP and Kern HL (2012) Modeling heterogeneous treatment effects in survey experiments with Bayesian additive regression trees. Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (3): 491-511.
26. Guess Andrew and Coppock Alexander (2018) "Replication Data for: Does Counter-Attitudinal Information Cause Backlash? Results from Three Large Survey Experiments", https://doi. org/10. 7910/DVN/J7WNTM, Harvard Dataverse, V1.
27. Guess A et al. (2018) Avoiding the echo chamber about echo chambers: why selective exposure to like-minded political news is less prevalent than you think. The Knight Foundation White Paper.
28. Guess AM (N. d.) Media choice and moderation: evidence from online tracking data. Unpublished manuscript.
29. Hauser DJ and Schwarz N (2016) Attentive turkers: mturk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods 48 (1): 400-407.
30. Hill JL (2011) Bayesian nonparametric modeling for causal inference. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 20 (1): 217-240.
31. Holland PW (1986) Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association 81 (396): 945-960.
32. Humphreys M, Sanchez de la Sierra R and van der Windt P (2013) Fishing, commitment, and communication: a proposal for comprehensive nonbinding research registration. Political Analysis 21 (1): 1-20.
33. Kahan D (2013) Fooled Twice, Shame on Who? Problems with Mechanical Turk Study Samples, Part 2. Available at http://www. culturalcognition. net/blog/2013/7/10/fooled-twice-shame-on-who-problems-with-mechanical-turk-stud. html, accessed 1 January 2016.
34. Kahan DM (2012) Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection: an experimental study. Judgment and Decision Making 8, 407-24.
35. Kerr NL (1998) Harking: hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2 (3): 196-217.
36. Kuhn D and Lao J (1996) Effects of evidence on attitudes: is polarization the norm. Psychological Science 7 (2): 115-120.
37. Kuklinski JH et al. (2001) The political environment and citizen competence. American Journal of Political Science 45 (2): 410-424.
38. Kunda Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 108, 480-498.
39. Lau R and Redlawsk D (2006) How Voters Decide: Information Processing During Election Campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Lazarsfeld PF, Berelson B and Gaudet H (1944) The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.
41. Leeper TJ (2017) MTurkR: Access to Amazon Mechanical Turk Requester API via R. R package version 0. 8. 0.
42. Leeper TJ and Slothuus R (2014) Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Advances in Political Psychology 35, 129-156.
43. Leeper TJ and Thorson E (2015) Minimal sponsorship-induced bias in web survey data. Paper presented at the 2015 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
44. Levendusky MS (2013) Why do partisan media polarize viewers? American Journal of Political Science 57 (3): 611-623.
45. Lodge M and Taber CS (2013) The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. Lord CS, Ross L and Lepper M (1979) Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, 2098-2109.
47. Miller AG et al. (1993) The attitude polarization phenomenon: role of response measure, attitude extremity, and behavioral consequences of reported attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64 (4): 561-574.
48. Moore RT (2015) blockTools: blocking, assignment, and diagnosing interference in randomized experiments. R package version 0. 6-2.
49. Mullinix KJ et al. (2015) The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science 2, 109-138.
50. Mummolo J and Peterson E (2017) Demand effects in survey experiments: an empirical assessment. doi: 10. 2139/ssrn. 2956147.
51. Nyhan B and Reifler J (2010) When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior 32 (2): 303-330.
52. Nyhan B and Reifler J (2015) Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine 33 (3): 459-464.
53. Nyhan B et al. (2014) Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics 133 (4): 835-842.
54. Prior M (2007)) Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55. Prior M et al. (2015) You cannot be serious: the impact of accuracy incentives on partisan bias in reports of economic perceptions. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 10 (4): 489-518.
56. Redlawsk DP (2002) Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. The Journal of Politics 64 (4): 1021-1044.
57. Redlawsk DP, Civettini AJW and Emmerson KM (2010) The affective tipping point: do motivated reasoners ever "Get It"? Political Psychology 31 (4): 563-593.
58. Sears DO (1986) College sophomores in the laboratory: influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (3): 515-530.
59. Strickland AA, Taber CS and Lodge M (2011) Motivated reasoning and public opinion. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 36 (6): 935-944.
60. Taber CS, Cann D and Kucsova S (2009) The motivated processing of political arguments. Political Behavior 31 (2): 137-155.
61. Taber CS and Lodge M (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 755-769.
62. Tversky A and Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185 (4157): 1124-1131.
63. White A et al. (2016) Investigator characteristics and respondent behavior in online surveys. Journal of Experimental Political Science 5 (10): 56-67.
64. Wood T and Porter E (2018) The elusive backfire effect: mass attitudes' steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior. Forthcoming.
65. Zaller JR (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
66. Zhou J (2016) Boomerangs versus javelins: how polarization constrains communication on climate change. Environmental Politics 25 (5): 788-811.