CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 437Climate Change Communication and PerceptionAcademic Freedom and PoliticsScience and Science Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Nisbet, Erik C., Cooper, Kathryn E., Garrett, R. Kelly·2015·The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
DOI 10.1177/0002716214555474
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There has been deepening concern about political polarization in public attitudes toward the scientific community. The “intrinsic thesis” attributes this polarization to psychological deficiencies among conservatives as compared to liberals. The “contextual thesis” makes no such claims about inherent psychological differences between conservatives and liberals, but rather points to interacting institutional and psychological factors as the forces driving polarization. We evaluate the evidence for both theses in the context of developing and testing a theoretical model of audience response to dissonant science communication. Conducting a national online experiment ( N = 1,500), we examined audience reactions to both conservative-dissonant and liberal-dissonant science messages and consequences for trust in the scientific community. Our results suggest liberals and conservatives alike react negatively to dissonant science communication, resulting in diminished trust of the scientific community. We discuss how our findings link to the larger debate about political polarization of science and implications for science communicators.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0002716214555474

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 64 references

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. 10.1038/nclimate1547 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Byrne Sahara, 2009, Communication Yearbook, 33, 3
  3. Chaiken Shelly, 1987, Social influence: The Ontario symposium, 3
  4. Kahan Dan M., 2006, Yale Law & Policy Review, 24, 149
  5. 10.1038/nclimate1547 · DOI · Paper page
  6. McGuire William J., 1964, Advances in experimental and social psychology, 192
  7. Mooney Chris, 2011, Mother Jones
  8. Mooney Chris, 2012, The Republican brain: The science of why they deny science and reality
  9. Pew Research Center, 2013, Continued support for Keystone XL Pipeline
  10. Pew Research Center, 2013, GOP deeply divided over climate change
  11. Pew Research Center, 2013, Public’s views on human evolution
  12. Scheufele Dietram A., 2006, Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action, 20
  13. Weeks Brian E., International Journal of Public Opinion

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 435

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Nisbet, E. C., Cooper, K. E., & Garrett, R. K.
Affiliations
The Ohio State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2015-02-08
Volume
658
Issue
1
Pages
36-66
ISSN
  • 0002-7162 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3349
DOI
10.1177/0002716214555474
OpenAlex
W2132998485
Cited by
437
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 12
FWCI
95.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Academic Freedom and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Science and Science Education
Keywords
political polarization, science communication, public trust in science, conservatives, liberals, audience response

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