CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 11Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationSocial and Intergroup PsychologyMedia Influence and Politics

Factual knowledge can reduce attitude polarization

Open access
Stagnaro, Michael Nicholas, Amsalem, Eran·2025·Nature Communications
DOI 10.1038/s41467-025-58697-3PMC PMC12019190
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

It is commonly argued that factual knowledge about a political issue increases attitude polarization due to politically motivated reasoning. By this account, individuals ignore counter-attitudinal facts and direct their attention to pro-attitudinal facts; reject counter-attitudinal facts when directly confronted with them; and use pro-attitudinal facts to counterargue, all making them more polarized. The observation that more knowledgeable partisans are often more polarized is widely taken as support for this account. Yet these data are only correlational. Here, we directly test the causal effect of increasing issue-relevant knowledge on attitude polarization. Specifically, we randomize whether N = 1,011 participants receive a large, credible set of both pro- and counter-attitudinal facts on a contentious political issue – gun control – and provide a modest incentive for them to learn this information. We find evidence that people are willing to engage with and learn policy-relevant facts both for and against their initial attitudes; and that this increased factual knowledge shifts individuals towards more moderate policy attitudes, a durable effect that is still visible after one month. Our results suggest that the impact of directionally motivated reasoning on the processing of political information might be more limited than previously thought. Prominent theories suggest people use political facts to bolster their political attitudes, yet previous work relies on observational data. Here, the authors present experimental evidence that learning facts on a politically contentious topic can lead people to adopt more moderate policy attitudes.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

A pre-registered two-wave experiment randomized 1,011 US participants to learn a large, credible set of pro- and counter-attitudinal facts about gun control or a nonpolitical control topic. Increasing factual knowledge moved policy attitudes toward moderation, durably after one month, without reducing affective polarization.

Key findings

  • Participants engaged with both pro- and counter-attitudinal facts: time spent on counter-attitudinal modules (M = 4.19, SD = 1.12) did not differ significantly from pro-attitudinal modules (M = 4.17, SD = 1.09), β = 0.008, p = 0.541; 82% rated counter-attitudinal modules and 86.5% rated pro-attitudinal modules as helpful or very helpful.
  • The treatment increased gun-control knowledge: Wave 1 β = .402, p < .001, d = .878; Wave 2 β = .15, p < .001, d = .304. Pro-gun-control participants learned anti-gun-control facts more than pro-gun-control facts (β = −0.211, p < .001), while anti-gun-control participants learned pro-gun-control facts more, though not significantly (β = 0.103, p = 0.096).
  • Factual knowledge shifted policy attitudes in the opposing direction from initial attitudes: gun-control attitudes significantly in Wave 2 (β = 0.093, p = 0.008) but not Wave 1 (p = 0.086); evidence-alignment significantly in Wave 1 (b = .437, p < 0.001) but not Wave 2 (p = 0.072); evidence-implies-policy significantly in Wave 1 (b = 0.346, p = 0.004) but not Wave 2 (p = .22). No significant Wave × treatment interactions were reported.
  • The treatment had no significant effect on affective polarization in Wave 1 (β = −0.001, p = 0.985) or Wave 2 (β = −0.015, p = 0.651).

Methods

  • Pre-registered two-wave experiment (Aspredicted #73660): N = 1,011 quota-matched US participants from Bovitz, Inc., randomized to gun-control training modules or a dog-training control; Wave 2 recontacted 881 participants (87% retention).
  • Treatment exposed participants to neutral, pro-gun-control, and anti-gun-control facts in self-paced modules, with $0.10 per correct answer on an 11-item knowledge battery; outcomes included three policy-attitude measures recoded as movement opposing one’s initial gun-control attitude and a five-item social-distance affective polarization measure.
  • Main analyses were intent-to-treat models without controls, two-tailed; robustness checks included controls, instrumental variables, alternative “folded” extremity coding, and ordinal logistic regressions for ordinal outcomes.

Limitations

  • Paper-stated: participants were incentivized to learn, which may not reflect daily life; they could not choose which facts to see, whereas outside the lab people can avoid uncongenial political information; the study used one issue (gun control) and only US respondents.
  • Paper-stated: mediation analyses testing learning as a mechanism were non-pre-registered and did not experimentally manipulate mediators, so they should be interpreted cautiously.
  • Text-evident, not framed as a limitation by the authors: some attitudinal outcomes were statistically significant in only one wave, although the paper reports no significant Wave × treatment interactions.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41467-025-58697-3

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

8 of 19 cited sources checked · 6 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Prior work utilizes observational data to examine the relationship between domain-specific knowledge and attitude polarization.

    “Despite the causal nature of the arguments described above, prior work utilizes observational data to examine the relationship between domain-specific knowledge and attitude polarization.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [16] Kahan, D. M. et al. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 732–735 (2012). source
    • cites [19] Drummond, C. & Fischhoff, B. Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9587–9592 (2017). source
    • cites [17] Taber, C. S. & Lodge, M. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am. J. Political Sci. 50, 755–769 (2006). source
  • Premisecitation

    Prior experiments on political information use thin informational treatments consisting of a single piece of information or one argument.

    “However, these experiments use thin informational treatments consisting of a single piece of information. Researchers typically present to participants a single fact relevant to a topic (e.g., ref. 4) or one argument either supporting or opposing a policy proposal (e.g., ref. 23).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [4] van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. Scientific agreement can neutralize politicization of facts. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 2–3 (2018). source
    • cites [23] Guess, A. & Coppock, A. Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 50, 1497–1515 (2020). source
  • Premisecitation

    A growing number of empirical studies have uncovered evidence that people update their political attitudes and beliefs in line with evidence and arguments presented to them.

    “Consistent with this view, a growing number of empirical studies have uncovered evidence that people update their political attitudes and beliefs in line with evidence (e.g., refs. 4,13,27–29) and arguments23,30,31 presented to them.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [4] van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. Scientific agreement can neutralize politicization of facts. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 2–3 (2018). source
    • cites [13] Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N. & Cook, F. L. The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behav. 36, 235–262 (2014). source
    • cites [27] Bullock, J. G. Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 105, 496–515 (2011). source
    • cites [28] Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G. & Rand, D. G. Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychol. Sci. 31, 770–780 (2020). source

      Study 1 Results compare judgments of COVID-19 headline accuracy with willingness to share; Study 2 Results report that an accuracy reminder changed sharing intentions. Neither section reports people updating political attitudes or beliefs in response to evidence or arguments. Our copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [29] Swire-Thompson, B., DeGutis, J. & Lazer, D. Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 9, 286–299 (2020). source
  • Findingown data

    Under an alternative coding that folds each response scale at the midpoint, people in the treatment group tend to report less extreme attitudes than people in the control group.

    “In short, people in the treatment group tend to report less extreme (i.e., closer to the midpoint) attitudes than people in the control group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The attitude items validly measure the intended policy attitude constructs.
  • Findingown data

    Individuals initially identifying as pro-gun control showed a significantly larger learning effect for anti-gun control facts than pro-gun control facts.

    “Results show that individuals initially identifying as pro-gun control show a significantly larger learning effect for anti-gun control facts than pro-gun control facts (β = − 0.211 [df = 588], p < .001, d = − 0.356, 95% CI [− 0.47, − 0.24]);”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The gun-control knowledge items validly measure issue-relevant factual knowledge.
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 18
  • May combine two claims. 18

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The sample was a nationally representative, quota-matched sample of N = 1011 participants from Bovitz, Inc.

    “In Wave 1 of the study, we recruited a nationally representative, quota-matched sample of N = 1011 participants from Bovitz, Inc.32.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [32] Stagnaro, M. N. et al. Representativeness versus attentiveness: A comparison across nine online survey samples. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/h9j2d (2024). source

      The Breakdown of the samples section describes Bovitz-Forthright as a source of samples quota-matched to national distributions for age, gender, ethnicity, and region. The Representativeness section says its sample was more representative than convenience samples, not that it was nationally representative. The cited paper reports 1,115 Bovitz participants; it does not verify the citing authors’ Wave 1 count of 1,011. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Recent research suggests human reasoning is meaningfully directed toward the formation of accurate, rather than merely identity-confirming, beliefs.

    “Recent research suggests that human reasoning is “meaningfully directed toward the formation of accurate, rather than merely identity-confirming, beliefs” (ref. 24 p. 2525)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [24] Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116, 2521–2526 (2019). source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The mediation results should be interpreted cautiously because the mediators were not experimentally manipulated.

    “The mediation results should be interpreted cautiously, however, because we did not experimentally manipulate the mediators35,36.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [35] Bullock, J. G., Green, D. P. & Ha, S. E. Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (Don’t expect an easy answer). J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98, 550–558 (2010). source
    • cites [36] Imai, K., Tingley, D. & Yamamoto, T. Experimental designs for identifying causal mechanisms. J. R. Stat. Soc. A 176, 5–51 (2013). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants did not avoid but attended to and indicated value in the factual information presented to them, both when it confirmed and when it contradicted their prior beliefs.

    “In sum, when examining participants’ willingness to engage with factual information, we find a result quite contrary to what the PMR theory would predict. Participants did not avoid but attended to and indicated value in the factual information presented to them. Importantly, this was the case both when the information confirmed people’s previously held beliefs and when it contradicted their prior”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “We find evidence that people are willing to engage with and learn policy-relevant facts both for and against their initial attitudes”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Exposure to facts about gun control results in attitudes closer to the other side of the policy debate, and this effect occurs for those predisposed to support gun control as well as those predisposed to oppose it.

    “Exposure to facts about gun control results in attitudes that are closer to the other side of the policy debate, and this effect occurs for those who are predisposed to support gun control as well as those who are predisposed to oppose it.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The nonpolitical control training topic does not influence gun-control attitudes or knowledge.
    • Rests on an assumption: The attitude items validly measure the intended policy attitude constructs.
    • Rests on an assumption: The one-month follow-up sample is not differentially selected in a way that biases the estimated treatment effects.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Given a modest incentive, individuals learn all three types of gun-control facts (neutral, pro-gun control, anti-gun control), but especially counter-attitudinal facts.

    “In sum, given a modest incentive, individuals learn all three types of gun-control facts, but especially counter-attitudinal facts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The gun-control knowledge items validly measure issue-relevant factual knowledge.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The depolarizing effect of domain-specific knowledge is found for different indicators of attitude, and it is still visible one month after the treatment.

    “The depolarizing effect of domain-specific knowledge is found for different indicators of attitude, and it is still visible one month after the treatment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The attitude items validly measure the intended policy attitude constructs.
    • Rests on an assumption: The one-month follow-up sample is not differentially selected in a way that biases the estimated treatment effects.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants rated both pro-attitudinal and counter-attitudinal modules as valuable, with ratings significantly and substantially above the scale midpoint.

    “However, as above, both categories were rated significantly and substantially above the scale midpoint (counter-attitudinal: β = 0.769 [df = 420], p < 0.001, d = − 2.41, 95% CI [-2.59, − 2.23]; pro-attitudinal: β = 0.803 [df = 420], p < 0.001, d = − 2.7, 95% CI [− 2.88, − 2.51]).”
    • Also stated in: § Engagement with Factual Information · plain
      “Further, 86.5% of participants gave the pro-attitudinal modules an average rating of helpful or very helpful, as did 82% of participants for counter-attitudinal modules.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants rated both neutral and valenced information modules as valuable, with ratings significantly and substantially above the scale midpoint.

    “However, the difference is small and dependent on model parameters. What is more, both valenced (β = 0.806 [df = 456], p < 0.001, d = − 2.718, 95% CI [− 2.9, − 2.54]) and neutral modules (β = 0.794 [df = 456], p < 0.001, d = − 2.61 95% CI [− 2.78, − 2.43]) are significantly and substantially above the midpoint of the rating scale (“Neither helpful nor unhelpful”).”
    • Also stated in: § Engagement with Factual Information · plain
      “Moreover, 74.4% of participants gave the neutral modules an average rating of helpful or very helpful, and 80.1% of participants gave the valenced modules an average rating of helpful or very helpful.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants in the treatment condition spent a substantial amount of time on both politically neutral and politically valenced gun-control modules, with no statistically significant difference in mean log time between neutral and valenced modules.

    “Here, we find first that participants spent a substantial amount of time in both information categories, with the mean log time in a politically neutral module being M = 4.17 (SD = 0.89), and the mean log time in a valenced (or politicized) module being only slightly longer at M = 4.18 (SD = 1.09), a statistically insignificant difference, β = 0.006 (df = 456), p = 0.670 d = − 0.013, 95% CI (− 0.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The gun control attitudes of participants in the treatment group moved further from their initial attitude than the attitudes of participants in the control group, insignificantly in Wave 1 and significantly in Wave 2.

    “As predicted, the gun control attitudes of participants in the treatment group moved further from their initial attitude than the attitudes of participants in the control group, insignificantly in Wave 1, β = 0.057 (df = 922), p = 0.086, d = − 0.113, 95% CI (− 0.24, 0.02); significantly in Wave 2, β = 0.093 (df = 806), p = 0.008, d = − 0.187, 95% CI (− 0.33, − 0.05).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The nonpolitical control training topic does not influence gun-control attitudes or knowledge.
    • Rests on an assumption: The attitude items validly measure the intended policy attitude constructs.
    • Rests on an assumption: The one-month follow-up sample is not differentially selected in a way that biases the estimated treatment effects.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants in the treatment group moved further from their initial attitude than those in the control group on perceptions of which side in the gun control debate is more aligned with the evidence, significantly in Wave 1 and insignificantly in Wave 2.

    “Here we again see those in the treatment group move further from their initial attitude than those in the control group (significantly in Wave 1, b = .437 [df = 916], p < 0.001, d = − 0.185, 95% CI [− 0.32, − 0.06]; insignificantly in Wave 2, b = 0.226 [df = 806], p = 0.072, d = − 0.101, 95% CI [− 0.24, .04]).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The nonpolitical control training topic does not influence gun-control attitudes or knowledge.
    • Rests on an assumption: The attitude items validly measure the intended policy attitude constructs.
    • Rests on an assumption: The one-month follow-up sample is not differentially selected in a way that biases the estimated treatment effects.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants in the treatment group moved further from their initial attitude than those in the control group on perceptions of what the current evidence on gun control implies for policy, significantly in Wave 1 but not in Wave 2.

    “We again see that those in the treatment group moved further from their initial attitude than those in the control group in Wave 1 (b = 0.346 [df = 919], p = 0.004, d = − 0.14, 95% CI [− 0.27, − 0.01]), though this effect was not significant in Wave 2 (b = .157 [df = 806], p = .22, d = − 0.02, 95% CI [− 0.16, .11]).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The nonpolitical control training topic does not influence gun-control attitudes or knowledge.
    • Rests on an assumption: The attitude items validly measure the intended policy attitude constructs.
    • Rests on an assumption: The one-month follow-up sample is not differentially selected in a way that biases the estimated treatment effects.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The depolarizing effect of policy facts is found for different attitude measures and is still detectable one month after the treatment.

    “The depolarizing effect of policy facts is found for different attitude measures and is still detectable one month after the treatment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The one-month follow-up effect is not due to repeated testing or demand characteristics.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Once individuals have been exposed to both pro- and counter-attitudinal information, they attend to, internalize, and update on both types of facts.

    “We show that once individuals have been exposed to both pro- and counter-attitudinal information, they attend to, internalize, and update on both types of facts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data

    Gun control is a highly contentious political issue.

    “We also confirmed in a pilot study (reported in Supplementary Note 11) that gun control is a highly contentious political issue.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Effects on perceptions of which side is aligned with the evidence are similar when adding controls.

    “and the effects are similar when adding controls (Supplementary Table 1G).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Effects on perceptions of what the evidence implies for policy are similar when adding controls.

    “and the effects are similar when adding controls (Supplementary Table 1H).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The depolarization effect appears to be specific to policy attitudes and does not generalize to feelings toward people who hold an opposing view.

    “The depolarization effect appears to be specific to policy attitudes and does not generalize to feelings toward people who hold an opposing view.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The attitude items validly measure the intended policy attitude constructs.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Learning issue-relevant facts causes people to adopt more moderate policy attitudes, without changing their feelings towards people with opposing views.

    “We find that learning issue-relevant facts causes people to adopt more moderate policy attitudes, without changing their feelings towards people with opposing views.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The nonpolitical control training topic does not influence gun-control attitudes or knowledge.
    • Rests on an assumption: The attitude items validly measure the intended policy attitude constructs.
    • Rests on an assumption: The one-month follow-up sample is not differentially selected in a way that biases the estimated treatment effects.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Participants were randomized to learn about either gun control or a nonpolitical control topic.

    “Participants were randomized to learn about either gun control or a nonpolitical control topic via a series of training modules that educated them on a variety of facts relevant to the issue.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    The data on the relationship between knowledge and polarization are only correlational.

    “Yet these data are only correlational.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Accurate political information, along with sufficient incentives for learning, can truly reduce partisan gaps in factual beliefs.

    “This finding suggests that accurate political information, along with sufficient incentives for learning, can truly reduce partisan gaps in factual beliefs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    In Wave 2, 881 (87%) of the initial sample participated.

    “Of the initial sample, 881 (87%) participated in Wave 2.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Participants were given several opportunities to exit the main sections of the study (at a cost) to prevent attrition issues.

    “Critically, to prevent attrition issues, participants were given several opportunities to exit the main sections of the study (at a cost) if they felt they no longer wanted to continue.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The Wave 1 sample was quota-matched for age, gender, race, education, and region.

    “The sample was quota-matched for age, gender, race, education, and region.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The three attitudinal outcomes were analyzed separately in line with the pre-registered protocol.

    “In line with the pre-registered protocol, the three outcomes were analyzed separately, and all three were recoded such that higher scores indicate greater movement in the opposing direction from one’s initial gun control attitude.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study was pre-registered.

    “Building on this line of work, we test the pre-registered hypothesis that learning facts about a contentious political issue has a causal depolarizing effect on political attitudes.”
    • Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
      “In line with the pre-registered protocol, the three outcomes were analyzed separately, and all three were recoded such that higher scores indicate greater movement in the opposing direction from one’s initial gun control attitude.”
    • Also stated in: § Incorporation of factual information · plain
      “Our pre-registered coding method for the three attitudinal outcomes examines how much participants’ attitudes moved in the opposing direction from the side they started on.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    There was no difference in trust in content between the experimental and control groups (p = .895).

    “there was no difference in trust in content between the experimental and control groups (p = .895).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The final Wave 1 sample was N = 1011 after 30 (2.96%) complete attrition.

    “Of the remaining 1041 individuals who continued into the study, 30 (2.96%) completely attrited the study, giving us a final sample of N = 1011”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The labels pro- vs. anti-gun control were only used for analyses; no module used such language when presenting information to participants.

    “Note that the above labels (i.e., pro- vs. anti-gun control) were only used for our analyses; at no point did any module use such language when presenting information to participants.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study was pre-registered (design, measures, hypothesis, and analysis plan) at Aspredicted.org on August 30, 2021, as study #73660.

    “We pre-registered our design, measures, hypothesis, and analysis plan at Aspredicted.org on August 30, 2021, as study #73660”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The Wave 2 retention rate was 87% (N = 881).

    “In Wave 2 of the study, we recontacted all participants a month later with a retention rate of 87% (N = 881).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Wave 2 participants were comparable to Wave 1 participants on political ideology, party identification, gender, and condition.

    “The Wave 2 participants were comparable to those from Wave 1 on political ideology, party identification, gender, and condition (see Supplementary Note 13).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The informational treatment was powerful and worked as intended.

    “Questions 1 and 2 can be interpreted as a manipulation check; our main goal with these analyses is to show that the informational treatment was powerful and worked as intended.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The nonpolitical control training topic does not influence gun-control attitudes or knowledge.
    • Rests on an assumption: The gun-control knowledge items validly measure issue-relevant factual knowledge.
35 of 35

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The nonpolitical control training topic does not influence gun-control attitudes or knowledge.

    “Participants were randomized to learn about either gun control or a nonpolitical control topic via a series of training modules that educated them on a variety of facts relevant to the issue.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The gun-control knowledge items validly measure issue-relevant factual knowledge.

    “After the training, participants’ knowledge of gun control facts was measured to see if we had successfully manipulated topic-relevant knowledge.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The attitude items validly measure the intended policy attitude constructs.

    “Participants then proceeded to answer a series of questions measuring three aspects of their policy attitudes: (a) their position on increasing gun control, (b) their opinion about which side in the gun control debate is most aligned with the evidence, and (c) their view of what the evidence on gun control implies for policy.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The one-month follow-up sample is not differentially selected in a way that biases the estimated treatment effects.

    “In Wave 2 of the study, we recontacted all participants a month later with a retention rate of 87% (N = 881).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The facts presented in the training modules are objective, verifiable, and credible.

    “Our informational treatment consists of a training session that exposes participants to a high volume of issue-relevant information, covers diverse aspects of the issue, uses objective, verifiable facts; and, critically, includes a mix of facts both for and against people’s initial policy attitudes.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Gun control is a representative contentious political issue for testing the effect of factual knowledge on attitude polarization.

    “Specifically, we randomize whether N = 1,011 participants receive a large, credible set of both pro- and counter-attitudinal facts on a contentious political issue – gun control – and provide a modest incentive for them to learn this information.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The control condition (dog training) is a valid counterfactual that does not itself affect gun control attitudes or knowledge.

    “Next, participants were presented with a topic – gun control in the experimental condition and dog training in the control condition”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 11-item gun-control knowledge battery validly measures factual knowledge about gun control.

    “we measured participants’ topic knowledge using an 11-item gun-control knowledge battery.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The attitude measures validly capture policy attitude extremity and depolarization.

    “the three attitude items described above were recoded into variables indicating depolarization, that is, attitude change in the opposing direction from one’s pre-treatment gun control attitude”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The sample of American respondents is sufficiently representative to generalize the depolarization effect to the broader American public.

    “since our study only included American respondents”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The one-month follow-up effect is not due to repeated testing or demand characteristics.

    “The depolarizing effect of policy facts is found for different attitude measures and is still detectable one month after the treatment.”
11 of 11

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Helpfulness comparison has a significant p-value but a CI spanning zero

    Major

    The reported p-value indicates a significant difference, but the accompanying 95% confidence interval for the reported effect size includes zero.

  • Learning comparison has a nonsignificant p-value but a CI excluding zero

    Major

    The comparison is described as not statistically significant, with p = 0.096, yet its accompanying 95% confidence interval lies entirely below zero.

  • Attrition percentage uses the wrong denominator

    Minor

    Of the 1,041 people who continued into the study, 30 attrited. That is 2.88%, not 2.96%.

    Reported 2.96 · recomputed 2.881844

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Kahan, D. M. in Emerging trends in social and behavioral sciences. (New York: Wiley, 2016).
  2. Coppock, A. Persuasion in parallel. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2021).
  3. Greene, J. Moral tribes: Emotion, Reason, And The Gap Between Us and Them. (London, UK: Penguin, 2014).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Stagnaro, M. N., & Amsalem, E.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
Corresponding author
Stagnaro, Michael Nicholas
ORCID
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-04-23
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
3809-3809
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41467-025-58697-3
PMC
PMC12019190
OpenAlex
W4409696447
Cited by
11
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5
FWCI
46.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
United States Department of Defense | United States Navy | ONR | Office of Naval Research Global (N00014-21-1-2573)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
Keywords
attitude polarization, factual knowledge, gun control, political attitudes, political information processing
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review