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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“the effects of PST depend partly on who the PST audience is (for example, different political orientation might lead to different trust assignments and information uptake;Nisbet et al. [2015]).”
From Science Communication and the Problematic Impact of Descriptive Norms (2023) · cites this paper as Nisbet et al. [2015]
Citations
Cites
Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 · Cited by 32,433
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9781503620766 · Cited by 24,241
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis :
Hayes, A. F., & names (2015) · Cited by 7,004
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1 · Cited by 5,219
Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339 · Cited by 4,904
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
Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x · Cited by 4,344
(2011) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.48-6243 · Cited by 3,575
When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2 · Cited by 3,173
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- 10.1038/nclimate1547 · DOI · Paper page
- Byrne Sahara, 2009, Communication Yearbook, 33, 3
- Chaiken Shelly, 1987, Social influence: The Ontario symposium, 3
- Kahan Dan M., 2006, Yale Law & Policy Review, 24, 149
- 10.1038/nclimate1547 · DOI · Paper page
- McGuire William J., 1964, Advances in experimental and social psychology, 192
- Mooney Chris, 2011, Mother Jones
- Mooney Chris, 2012, The Republican brain: The science of why they deny science and reality
- Pew Research Center, 2013, Continued support for Keystone XL Pipeline
- Pew Research Center, 2013, GOP deeply divided over climate change
- Pew Research Center, 2013, Public’s views on human evolution
- Scheufele Dietram A., 2006, Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action, 20
- Weeks Brian E., International Journal of Public Opinion
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber?
Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797615594620 · Cited by 1,472
The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction
Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., Kendeou, P., Vraga, E. K., & Amazeen, M. A. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y · Cited by 1,372
Sibley, C. G., Greaves, L. M., Satherley, N., Wilson, M., Overall, N. C., Lee, C. H. J., Milojev, P., Bulbulia, J. A., Osborne, D., Milfont, T. L., et al. (2020) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0000662 · Cited by 866
The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation
Druckman, J. N., & McGrath, M. C. (2019) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0360-1 · Cited by 733
Conspiracy Endorsement as Motivated Reasoning: The Moderating Roles of Political Knowledge and Trust
Miller, J. M., Saunders, K. L., & Farhart, C. E. (2015) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12234 · Cited by 741
Metadata
- Authors
- Nisbet, E. C., Cooper, K. E., & Garrett, R. K.
- Affiliations
- The Ohio State University (US)
- 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
- 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
- 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
