Social learning and partisan bias in the interpretation of climate trends

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 115, Issue 39, 2018, Pages 9714-9719

  Guilbeault, Douglas ^a   Becker, Joshua ^a   Centola, Damon ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Collective intelligence; Motivated reasoning; Polarization; Science communication; Social networks

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLIMATE; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; IDENTITY; INTELLIGENCE; POLARIZATION; SOCIAL LEARNING; SOCIAL NETWORK; TENSION; ADOLESCENT; AGED; ASSOCIATION; CLIMATE CHANGE; CONFLICT; FEMALE; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POLITICS; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL SUPPORT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; BIAS; CLIMATE CHANGE; COMMUNICATION; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); CUES; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POLITICS; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL LEARNING; SOCIAL SUPPORT; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85054040178     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1722664115     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Committee on the Science of Science Communication; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (2017) Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC).
2. Kahan D, et al. (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat Clim Chang 2:732-735.
3. McCright A, Dunlap R (2010) Anti-reflexivity: The American conservative movement's success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory Cult Soc 27:100-133.
4. McCright A, Dunlap R (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public's view of global warming, 2001-2010. Sociol Q 52:155-194.
5. Bosetti V, et al. (2017) COP21 climate negotiators' responses to climate model forecasts. Nat Clim Chang 7:184-191.
6. Jamieson K, Hardy B (2014) Leveraging scientific credibility about Arctic Sea ice trends in a polarized political environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:13598-13605.
7. Hardy B, Jamieson K (2017) Overcoming endpoint bias in climate change communication: The case of Arctic sea ice trends. Environ Commun 11:205-217.
8. Kunda Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol Bull 108:480-498.
9. Kahan D (2013) Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgm Decis Mak 8:407-424.
10. Katz E, Lazarsfeld P (1955) Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications (Free Press, New York).
11. Pearce W, Holmberg K, Hellsten I, Nerlich B (2014) Climate change on Twitter: Topics, communities and conversations about the 2013 IPCC Working Group 1 report. PLoS One 9:e94785.
12. Gough A, et al. (2017) Tweet for behavior change: Using social media for the dissemination of public health messages. JMIR Public Health Surveill 3:e14.
13. Watts D, Dodds P (2007) Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation. J Consum Res 34:441-458.
14. Bakshy E, Eckles D, Yan R, Rosenn I (2012) Social influence in social advertising: Evidence from field experiments. Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (ACM, New York), pp 146-161.
15. Williams H, McMurray J, Kurz T, Lambert H (2015) Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Glob Environ Change 32:126-138.
16. Farrell J (2015) Politics: Echo chambers and false certainty. Nat Clim Chang 5:719-720.
17. Jasny L, Waggle J, Fisher D (2015) An empirical examination of echo chambers in US climate policy networks. Nat Clim Chang 5:782-786.
18. Fishkin J (2009) When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy & Public Consultation (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford).
19. Sunstein C (2002) The law of group polarization. J Polit Philos 10:175-195.
20. Sunstein C (2009) Going to Extremes (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford).
21. Price V, Cappella J, Nir L (2002) Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion. Polit Commun 19:95-112.
22. Gutmann A, Thompson D (1996) Democracy and Disagreement (Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA).
23. Mutz D, Martin P (2001) Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. Am Polit Sci Rev 95:97-114.
24. Mutz D (2002) The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. Am J Pol Sci 46:838-855.
25. Kaplan M (1977) Discussion polarization effects in a modified jury decision paradigm: Informational influences. Sociometry 40:262-271.
26. Isenberg D (1986) Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 50:1141-1151.
27. Lord C, Ross L, Lepper M (1979) Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol 37: 2098-2109.
28. Corner A, Whitmarsh L, Xenias D (2012) Uncertainty, skepticism and attitudes toward climate change: Biased assimilation and attitude polarization. Clim Change 114: 463-478.
29. Munro G, Ditto P (1997) Biased assimilation, attitude polarization, and affect in reactions to stereotype-relevant scientific information. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 23:636-653.
30. Dandekar P, Goel A, Lee DT (2013) Biased assimilation, homophily, and the dynamics of polarization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:5791-5796.
31. Ditto P, Munro J, Apanovitch G, Marie A, Lockhart L (1998) Motivated sensitivity to preference-inconsistent information. J Pers Soc Psychol 75:53-69.
32. Acemoglu D, Dahleh MA, Lobel I, Ozdaglar A (2011) Bayesian learning in social networks. Rev Econ Stud 78:1201-1236.
33. Golub B, Jackson M (2010) Naive learning in social networks and the wisdom of crowds. Am Econ J Microecon 2:112-149.
34. Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone TW (2010) Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330: 686-688.
35. Becker J, Brackbill D, Centola D (2017) Network dynamics of social influence in the wisdom of crowds. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:E5070-E5076.
36. Lorenz J, Rauhut H, Schweitzer F, Helbing D (2011) How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:9020-9025.
37. Navajas J, Niella T, Garbulsky G, Bahrami B, Sigman M (2018) Aggregated knowledge from a small number of debates outperforms the wisdom of large crowds. Nat Hum Behav 2:126-132.
38. Wood T, Porter E (January 16, 2018) The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes' steadfast factual adherence. Polit Behav, 10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y.
39. Pennycook G, Rand D (2018) Crowdsourcing judgments of news source quality. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=3118471. Accessed July 27, 2018.
40. Pennycook G, Rand D (June 20, 2018) Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011.
41. Malka A, Lelkes Y (2010) More than ideology: Conservative-liberal identity and receptivity to political cues. Soc Justice Res 23:156-188.
42. Iyengar S, Westwood S (2014) Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. Am J Pol Sci 59:690-707.
43. Slothus R, de Vreese C (2010) Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. J Polit 72:630-645.
44. Iyengar S, Sood G, Lelkes Y (2012) Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opin Q 76:405-431.
45. Mason L (2018) Ideologues without issues: The polarizing consequences of ideological identities. Public Opin Q 82:280-301.
46. Devine C (2014) Ideological social identity: Psychological attachment to ideological ingroups as a political phenomenon and a behavioral influence. Polit Behav 37:1-27.
47. Otten S, Moskowitz G (2000) Evidence for implicit evaluative in-group bias: Affectbiased spontaneous trait inference in a minimal group paradigm. J Exp Soc Psychol 36: 77-89.
48. Hart S, Nisbet E (2012) Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Commun Res 39:701-723.