The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Boomerang Effects in Science Communication: How Motivated Reasoning and Identity Cues Amplify Opinion Polarization About Climate Mitigation Policies
Abstract
The deficit-model of science communication assumes increased communication about science issues will move public opinion toward the scientific consensus. However, in the case of climate change, public polarization about the issue has increased in recent years, not diminished. In this study, we draw from theories of motivated reasoning, social identity, and persuasion to examine how science-based messages may increase public polarization on controversial science issues such as climate change. Exposing 240 adults to simulated news stories about possible climate change health impacts on different groups, we found the influence of identification with potential victims was contingent on participants’ political partisanship. This partisanship increased the degree of political polarization on support for climate mitigation policies and resulted in a boomerang effect among Republican participants. Implications for understanding the role of motivated reasoning within the context of science communication are discussed.
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
A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors
O’brien, R. M. (2007) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6 · Cited by 11,217
Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273170701341316 · Cited by 9,973
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
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
Elder, J. W., Geertz, C., & Rosenhack, K. P. S. (1964) · Cited by 3,878
The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms
Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x · Cited by 3,643
An economic theory of political action in a democracy
Downs, A. (1957) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/257897 · Cited by 3,300
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
THE NATURE OF BELIEF SYSTEMS IN MASS PUBLICS
Converse, P. E. (2004) · Aarhus University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/jj.35529187.18 · Cited by 2,499
(2018) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/(issn)1460-2466 · Cited by 2,303
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- 10.1111/1467-954X.00243 · doi:10.1111/1467-954x.00243
- Mutz D., 2008, Red and blue nation?
- Nisbet M. C., 2009, Environment, 51, 514
- Nisbet M. C., 2009, Communicating science: New agendas in communication, 40
- Parry M. L, Canziani O. F, Palutikof J. P. & Co-authors. (2007). Technical summary. Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In Parry M. L, Canziani O. F, Palutikof J. P, van der Linden P. J, Hanson C. E (Eds.),Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp.23-78). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cited by
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612451018 · Cited by 2,920
How to SHIFT Consumer Behaviors to be More Sustainable: A Literature Review and Guiding Framework
White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/0022242919825649 · Cited by 2,386
Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era.
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008 · Cited by 1,985
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
Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S., & Maibach, E. (2017) · Global Challenges · doi:10.1002/gch2.201600008 · Cited by 1,058
Metadata
- Authors
- Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C.
- Venue
- Communication Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-08-11
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 701-723
- ISSN
- 0093-6502 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3810
- OpenAlex
- W2063214785
- Cited by
- 1,123
- References
- 63
- FWCI
- 75.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
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: Boomerang Effects in Science Communication: How Motivated Reasoning and Identity Cues Amplify Opinion Polarization About Climate Mitigation Policies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0093650211416646
- The paper
- Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang Effects in Science Communication: How Motivated Reasoning and Identity Cues Amplify Opinion Polarization About Climate Mitigation Policies. Communication Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646
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.
