The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social learning and partisan bias in the interpretation of climate trends
Open accessAbstract
Significance: Scientific communications about climate change are frequently misinterpreted due to motivated reasoning, which leads some people to misconstrue climate data in ways that conflict with the intended message of climate scientists. Attempts to reduce partisan bias through bipartisan communication networks have found that exposure to diverse political views can exacerbate bias. Here, we find that belief exchange in structured bipartisan networks can significantly improve the ability of both conservatives and liberals to interpret climate data, eliminating belief polarization. We also find that social learning can be reduced, and polarization maintained, when the salience of partisanship is increased, either through exposure to the logos of political parties or through exposure to political identity markers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098 · Cited by 4,583
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038 · Cited by 2,996
Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12152 · Cited by 2,452
Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection
Kahan, D. M. (2013) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500005271 · Cited by 1,302
The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation
Mutz, D. C. (2002) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/3088437 · Cited by 1,265 · cited 1×
“While some studies find that bipartisan communication networks can enhance both political participation and the quality of deliberation (18, 21, 23, 24), other studies show that they can backfire by causing people to reinforce their existing political biases (19, 20, 25, 26).”
BackgroundGroup polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis.
Isenberg, D. J. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141 · Cited by 1,044
How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect
Lorenz, J., Rauhut, H., Schweitzer, F., & Helbing, D. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1008636108 · Cited by 1,017
The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes’ Steadfast Factual Adherence
Wood, T., & Porter, E. (2019) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y · Cited by 904
Facilitating Communication across Lines of Political Difference: The Role of Mass Media
Mutz, D. C. (2001) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055401000223 · Cited by 700
Cited by
Addressing Health-Related Misinformation on Social Media
Chou, W.-Y. S., Oh, A., & Klein, W. M. P. (2018) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2018.16865 · Cited by 933
Computational Social Science and Sociology
Edelmann, A., Wolff, T., Montagne, D., & Bail, C. A. (2020) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054621 · Cited by 305
Scaling up fact-checking using the wisdom of crowds
Allen, J., Arechar, A. A., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abf4393 · Cited by 234
“In addition to the studies examining trust in news publishers described above ( 20 , 21 ), research has shown that crowdsourcing produces more accurate judgments than individual decision-making across a variety of partisan issues including climate change, immigration, and un-employment ( 54 , 55 ).”
Information gerrymandering and undemocratic decisions
Stewart, A. J., Mosleh, M., Diakonova, M., Arechar, A. A., Rand, D. G., & Plotkin, J. B. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1507-6 · Cited by 176
Humans rely more on algorithms than social influence as a task becomes more difficult
Bogert, E., Schecter, A., & Watson, R. T. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-87480-9 · Cited by 144
Metadata
- Authors
- Guilbeault, D., Becker, J., & Centola, D.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2018-09-04
- Volume
- 115
- Issue
- 39
- Pages
- 9714-9719
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2892027768
- Cited by
- 203
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 64.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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.
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Social learning and partisan bias in the interpretation of climate trends. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1722664115
- The paper
- Guilbeault, D., Becker, J., & Centola, D. (2018). Social learning and partisan bias in the interpretation of climate trends. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1722664115
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
