Factual belief polarization between Democrats and Republicans: source or epiphenomenon of ideological and affective polarization?
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Democrats and Republicans have polarized in their attitudes (i.e., ideological polarization) and their feelings toward each other (i.e., affective polarization). Simultaneously, both groups also seem to diverge in their factual beliefs about reality. This preregistered survey experiment among 2,253 American citizens examined how this factual belief polarization may or may not fuel ideological and affective polarization around four key issues: income differences, immigration, climate change, and defense spending. On all issues except immigration, Democrats and Republicans were equally or more divided in their factual beliefs about the present than in their ideals for the future. Corrective information decreased partisan polarization over some ideals, but not directional policy attitudes. Priming respondents' factual beliefs conversely increased polarization around defense spending, but not other issues. Much remains unclear about the complex relation between factual beliefs and polarization, but measuring ideals and priming beliefs could be promising avenues for future research.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This preregistered survey experiment with 2,253 American voters tests whether factual belief polarization fuels ideological and affective polarization between Democrats and Republicans. It finds mixed evidence: corrective information reduced party gaps in some ideals but not policy attitudes, while priming factual beliefs increased affective polarization only around defense spending.
Key findings
- On all issues except immigration, Democrats and Republicans were equally or more divided in factual beliefs about the present than in ideals for the future. The belief × party identification interaction was significant for climate change (6.44, SE = 0.74, p < 0.001), non-significant in the same direction for income differences (0.82, SE = 0.84) and defense spending (0.41, SE = 0.42), and reversed for immigration (−2.97, SE = 0.43, p < 0.001), where division was greater over ideals than beliefs (N = 1,337).
- Corrective information significantly reduced the ideological distance between Democrats and Republicans on ideals about income differences (−1.67, SE = 0.51, p < 0.01) and defense spending (−0.57, SE = 0.27, p < 0.05), but not immigration or climate change. There was no significant correction × party identification interaction for any of the four policy attitudes.
- Corrective information unexpectedly increased affective polarization on defense spending (5.11, SE = 1.85, p < 0.01). Priming factual beliefs increased affective polarization around defense spending (3.89, SE = 1.86, p < 0.05), mostly among Democrats, who raised affective polarization by about 10 degrees (10.10, SE = 2.98, p < 0.001) and increased opposition to defense spending (−0.58, SE = 0.13, p < 0.001). Priming on climate change unexpectedly lowered affective polarization (−4.56, SE = 1.91, p < 0.05).
- The paper reports that strong main effects of the information treatment on ideals indicate the manipulation was successful; null correction effects on policy attitudes therefore suggest informed participants changed factual beliefs but not opinions.
Methods
- Preregistered survey experiment among 2,253 eligible American voters recruited through Prolific and completed on 22 January 2022. Quota sampling targeted 2020 presidential vote choice: 743 non-voters, 789 Biden-voters, and 721 Trump-voters. After a math screening, 199 respondents (8.8%) were excluded, leaving 2,054 (91.2%) randomized to control, priming, or correction conditions.
- The study covered four issues: income differences, immigration, climate change, and defense spending. It measured factual beliefs, ideals, directional policy attitudes, and affective polarization via feeling thermometers toward Democrats, Republicans, and issue proponents/opponents. Party identification was measured with ANES-style items and recoded to a seven-point scale.
- Main analyses used ordinary least squares regressions with heteroscedasticity robust standard errors, including condition × party identification interactions, plus separate models for Democrats and Republicans. The paper notes three deviations from preregistration: dropping a pooled analysis, omitting recoding of extreme scores, and adding ideals as an outcome.
Limitations
- The paper states that priming involves an unconscious process, so a manipulation check cannot distinguish whether null priming results mean factual beliefs have no effect or the manipulation was ineffective. It also states that much remains unclear about if, when, how, and to what extent factual belief polarization fuels ideological and affective polarization.
- The paper notes deviations from preregistration and that the sample is quota-based only on vote choice; it cannot guarantee representativeness on other characteristics. Compared with the 2020 ANES, younger voters are overrepresented and older voters underrepresented.
- Evident from the text: the study is a single-country, single-wave survey experiment using a Prolific sample and self-reported measures, and results varied substantially by issue, limiting broad generalization.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
15 of 65 cited sources checked · 12 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
Democrats and Republicans have developed increasingly hostile feelings toward each other (affective polarization).
“both groups have also developed increasingly hostile feelings toward each other (Iyengar et al., 2019).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Iyengar et al., 2019 source
- Premisecitation
Democrats and Republicans are divided in their factual beliefs about reality.
“Democrats and Republicans are not only divided in their attitudes (i.e., ideological polarization) and their feelings toward each other (i.e., affective polarization), but also in their factual beliefs about reality.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked - Premisecitation
Experimental studies have consistently shown that consensus messages can effectively correct people's perceptions of what scientists believe about climate change.
“experimental studies have consistently shown that consensus messages can effectively correct people's perceptions of what scientists believe about climate change (Van der Linden et al., 2015;Deryugina and Shurchkov, 2016;Bolsen and Druckman, 2018).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked- cites Van der Linden et al., 2015 source
- cites Deryugina and Shurchkov, 2016 source
The Survey Experiment > Treatments section describes an experiment that gave participants messages about scientific consensus, and the Discussion reports a short-run effect on participants’ own climate-change beliefs. But the paper does not report that the detailed consensus message corrected participants’ perceptions of what scientists believe; its Results > Basic findings section also reports substantial skepticism about that message. This source therefore supports the experimental-message aspect, not the claimed correction of perceptions or the assertion that results were consistent. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites Bolsen and Druckman, 2018 source
- Premisecitation
Two studies revealed that Americans increased their support for foreign aid spending when they were informed about the share of the federal budget spent on foreign aid.
“two studies revealed that Americans increased their support for foreign aid spending when they were informed about the share of the federal budget spent on foreign aid (Gilens, 2001;Scotto et al., 2017).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked - Premisecitation
Meta-analytic studies show that corrections are generally effective in reducing misperceptions.
“meta-analytic studies show that corrections are generally effective in reducing misperceptions (Chan et al., 2017;Walter and Murphy, 2018).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
- Premisecitation
Observational research reveals an association over time between defense spending and public opinion whereby support for additional spending increased during periods when the actual expenditure decreased and vice versa.
“observational research reveals an association over time between defense spending and public opinion whereby support for additional spending increased during periods when the actual expenditure decreased and vice versa (Wlezien, 1995;Wlezien and Soroka, 2023).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked - Premisecitation
Several studies found that consensus messages did not change people's own beliefs about climate change or their attitudes toward climate action.
“Several studies found that consensus messages did not change people's own beliefs about climate change or their attitudes toward climate action (Deryugina and Shurchkov, 2016;Dixon et al., 2017;Bolsen and Druckman, 2018).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked- cites Deryugina and Shurchkov, 2016 source
The Discussion (page not available) reports no observed increase in support for policy action or willingness to donate after respondents received scientific-consensus information. But the Results, “The immediate effect of information” (page not available), report significant increases in respondents’ own beliefs that climate change is underway and caused by humans. Thus this source supports the claim about attitudes toward action, but not the claim that people’s own climate beliefs did not change. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites Dixon et al., 2017 source
- cites Bolsen and Druckman, 2018 source
- Premisecitation
In another experiment, participants were more likely to express that it is the government's responsibility to reduce inequality when they had been informed about the income distribution and the rising levels of inequality in the US.
“In another experiment, participants were more likely to express that it is the government's responsibility to reduce inequality when they had been informed about the income distribution and the rising levels of inequality in the US (McCall et al., 2017).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites McCall et al., 2017 source
- Premisecitation
A study found that Republicans raised their support for legal immigration only when they were informed about characteristics of the immigrant population and not only about its size.
“A study that compared different information treatments found that Republicans raised their support for legal immigration only when they were informed about characteristics of the immigrant population and not only about its size (Grigorieff et al., 2020).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Grigorieff et al., 2020 source
The Political Affiliation section reports significant improvements in Republicans’ overall policy preferences after the size-and-characteristics information treatment, and Policy Preferences reports increased support for admitting more legal immigrants among treated respondents overall. Experiment 3 reports that size-only information did not significantly change policy views. The copy does not establish the narrower result that Republicans specifically increased support for legal immigration, and the treatments were examined in separate experiments rather than a direct comparison. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
Previous research has demonstrated that participants use factual beliefs as an anchor for their ideals.
“Previous research has demonstrated that participants use factual beliefs as an anchor for their ideals (Pedersen and Mutz, 2019).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Pedersen and Mutz, 2019 source
- Premisecitation
Observational research points out that factual belief polarization and affective polarization often go together.
“observational research points out that factual belief polarization and affective polarization often go together (Rekker and Harteveld, 2022;Jenke, 2023).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites Rekker and Harteveld, 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Jenke, 2023 source
- Findingown data
On all issues except immigration, Democrats and Republicans were equally or more divided in their factual beliefs about the present than in their ideals for the future.
“On all issues except immigration, Democrats and Republicans were equally or more divided in their factual beliefs about the present than in their ideals for the future.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Corrective information did not decrease partisan polarization over directional policy attitudes.
“Corrective information decreased partisan polarization over some ideals, but not directional policy attitudes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Priming respondents' factual beliefs did not increase polarization around issues other than defense spending.
“Priming respondents' factual beliefs conversely increased polarization around defense spending, but not other issues.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Participants will use the primed discrepancy between their factual belief and their ideal to answer the policy attitude question.
- Findingown data
Priming respondents' factual beliefs increased polarization around defense spending.
“Priming respondents' factual beliefs conversely increased polarization around defense spending, but not other issues.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Participants will use the primed discrepancy between their factual belief and their ideal to answer the policy attitude question.
- Findingown data
Corrective information decreased partisan polarization over some ideals.
“Corrective information decreased partisan polarization over some ideals, but not directional policy attitudes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Participants primed with their factual beliefs about defense spending expressed more affective polarization around this issue.
“As expected, participants who were primed with their factual beliefs about defense spending expressed more affective polarization around this issue.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“As expected, primed participants expressed higher levels of affective polarization around the defense expenditure.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
- Findingown data
Democrats and Republicans agree that income differences are currently larger than they ideally should be.
“However, Democrats and Republicans do agree on the fundamental issue that income differences are currently larger than they ideally should be.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
For three out of the four issues, Democrats and Republicans were equally or more divided in their factual beliefs than in their ideals.
“For three out of the four issues, the estimated interaction effect reveals that Democrats and Republicans were equally or more divided in their beliefs than in their ideals.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · boosted
“First of all, the descriptive analyses demonstrated that, on all issues except immigration, Democrats and Republicans are equally or more divided in their beliefs about the present compared to their ideals for the future.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Discussion · boosted
- Findingreasoning
Democrats in the priming condition increased their opposition to defense spending.
“This effect was also visible in the policy attitudes of Democrats, who increased their opposition to defense spending.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
There was no significant interaction between the correction condition and party identification for any of the four policy attitudes.
“In sharp contrast, the results however revealed no significant interaction between the correction condition and party identification for any of the four policy attitudes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
On defense spending, corrective information unexpectedly increased affective polarization.
“On the issue of defense spending, the corrective information unexpectedly increased affective polarization.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Participants provided higher numbers as factual beliefs than as ideals on defense spending.
“Participants clearly provided higher numbers as factual beliefs than as ideals on this issue.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The models reveal no significant interaction between the priming condition and party identification for either ideals or policy attitudes on any of the four issues.
“Contrary to expectations, the models in Table 1 reveal no significant interaction between the priming condition and party identification for either ideals or policy attitudes on any of the four issues.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The null results for corrective information on policy attitudes extend to affective polarization around three of the four issues and partisanship.
“These null results also extend to affective polarization around three of the four issues and partisanship.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Republicans who were informed about the climate consensus raised their ideals about how much certainty would be needed to justify climate action.
“Similarly, Republicans who were informed about the climate consensus raised their ideals about how much certainty would be needed to justify climate action.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
For immigration, Democrats and Republicans differ only in their ideals, but not in their factual beliefs.
“For immigration, Figure 2 depicts the normatively ideal situation that Democrats and Republicans differ only in their ideals, but not in their factual beliefs because both groups have a rather accurate perception.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
Many informed Republicans increased their required level of certainty for climate action.
“Many informed Republicans also increased their required level of certainty for climate action, perhaps as a way to rationalize not changing their policy attitudes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The median Republican believes that about 75% certainty would be needed to justify climate action.
“Regarding climate change, Figure 2 shows that the median Republican believes that about 75% certainty would be needed to justify climate action.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Immigration was the only issue on which Democrats and Republicans were more divided in their ideals than in their factual beliefs.
“Immigration was the only issue on which Democrats and Republicans were, conversely, more divided in their ideals than in their beliefs.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The effect of priming on affective polarization around defense spending was mostly driven by Democrats, who on average raised their affective polarization by about 10 degrees.
“The analyses in Table 2 indicate that this effect was mostly driven by Democrats, who on average raised their affective polarization with a considerable effect size of 10 degrees.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
On climate change, Democrats and Republicans were significantly further apart in their factual beliefs than in their ideals.
“On the issue of climate change, both groups were significantly further apart in their beliefs than in their ideals”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
On climate change, participants in the priming condition unexpectedly indicated lower levels of affective polarization compared to the control condition.
“On the issue of climate change, participants in the priming condition unexpectedly indicated lower levels of affective polarization compared to the control condition.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Participants in the priming condition differed from the control condition in their levels of affective polarization around two of the four issues.
“Participants in the priming condition did, however, differ from the control condition in their levels of affective polarization around two of the four issues.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
On defense spending, Democrats and Republicans responded to corrective information by bringing their ideal level of spending closer to the actual number.
“On the issue of defense spending, Democrats and Republicans responded to corrective information by bringing their ideal level of spending closer to the actual number.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
Most Republicans expressed relatively egalitarian ideals about the income distribution compared to both their factual beliefs and the actual level of inequality.
“For example, most Republicans expressed relatively egalitarian ideals about the income distribution compared to both their factual beliefs and the actual level of inequality.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisereasoning
The causal relation between factual belief polarization and ideological and affective polarization is highly ambiguous.
“Although the rise of factual belief polarization may have coincided with increasing levels of ideological and affective polarization, the causal relation between both developments is highly ambiguous.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Democrats and Republicans have polarized in their attitudes (ideological polarization).
“citizens who identify as a Democrat have become more liberal while Republicans have become more conservative (Abramowitz and Saunders, 2008).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Abramowitz and Saunders, 2008 source
- Study design and conductown data
The recruited sample is very similar to the representative ANES probability sample with regard to gender, educational level, party identification, and political interest.
“the analysis in Supplementary Appendix S1 indicates that the recruited sample is very similar to the representative probability sample of the 2020 American National Election Studies (ANES) with regard to gender, educational level, party identification, and political interest.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
Decades of research on motivated reasoning show that people tend to select and interpret factual information in a way that reinforces their identity and attitudes rather than challenging them.
“Decades of research on motivated reasoning have shown unambiguously that people tend to select and interpret factual information in a way that reinforces their identity and attitudes rather than challenging them (e.g., Taber and Lodge, 2006).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Taber and Lodge, 2006 source
- Premisecitation
Previous research has established the existence of factual belief polarization for all four issues in this study.
“For all four issues in this study, previous research has already established the existence of factual belief polarization.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The four issues examined (income differences, immigration, climate change, and defense spending) are key issues in American politics.
- Premisecitation
On immigration, opponents perceive a larger share of foreign-born citizens in the population than proponents.
“On the issue of immigration, opponents perceive a larger share of foreign-born citizens in the population than proponents (Nadeau et al., 1993;Herda, 2013).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Premisecitation
Many other studies found no effect of corrective information on attitude change.
“but many other studies found no such effect (e.g., Kuklinski et al., 2000).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Kuklinski et al., 2000 source
- Premisecitation
Another study found that people became more supportive of additional science spending after being informed about the share of the federal budget allocated to scientific research.
“another study found that people became more supportive of additional science spending after being informed about the share of the federal budget allocated to scientific research (Goldfarb and Kriner, 2017).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Goldfarb and Kriner, 2017 source
- Premisecitation
Most studies established that informed participants report more accurate beliefs.
“most studies established that informed participants indeed report more accurate beliefs.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
This intervention decreased attitude differences between Democrats and Republicans.
“This intervention also decreased attitude differences between Democrats and Republicans.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Boudreau and MacKenzie, 2018 source
- Premisecitation
Some studies revealed that corrective information can induce attitude change.
“Some studies revealed that corrective information can induce attitude change (e.g., Howell and West, 2009)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Howell and West, 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Premisecitation
Uninformed citizens may use their political attitudes as a heuristic to fill gaps in their knowledge.
“Moreover, uninformed citizens may use their political attitudes as a heuristic to fill the gaps in their knowledge (Herda, 2013).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Herda, 2013 source
- Premisecitation
A survey experiment among Danes revealed that participants did not change their attitudes either when they were informed about the size of the immigrant population or about other characteristics.
“A survey experiment among Danes, however, revealed that participants did not change their attitudes either when they were informed about the size of the immigrant population or about other characteristics (Jørgensen and Osmundsen, 2022).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Jørgensen and Osmundsen, 2022 source
- Premisecitation
No experimental evidence is available on the effect of factual beliefs about political issues on affective polarization.
“Moreover, no experimental evidence is available on the effect of factual beliefs about political issues on affective polarization.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Premisecitation
Another experimental study demonstrated that Americans raised their support for redistribution after learning the magnitude of income differences based on gender, race, and family background.
“another experimental study demonstrated that Americans raised their support for redistribution after learning the magnitude of income differences based on gender, race, and family background (Becker, 2020).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Becker, 2020 source
- Premisecitation
A systematic literature review documented both instances in which information treatments increased and decreased polarization over redistribution attitudes.
“a systematic literature review documented both instances in which information treatments increased and decreased polarization over redistribution attitudes (Marino et al., 2024).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Marino et al., 2024 source
- Premisecitation
In a survey experiment among Californians, Republicans increased their support for a progressive income tax after learning about the income inequality in their state.
“In a survey experiment among Californians, Republicans increased their support for a progressive income tax after learning about the income inequality in their state (Boudreau and MacKenzie, 2018).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Boudreau and MacKenzie, 2018 source
- Premisecitation
Empirical evidence for a causal effect of factual belief polarization on ideological and affective polarization is sparse and inconclusive.
“Nonetheless, the empirical evidence for a causal effect of factual belief polarization on ideological and affective polarization is surprisingly sparse and inconclusive.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Howell and West, 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Kuklinski et al., 2000 source
- Interpretationreasoning
The inclusion of ideals exposed two potential mechanisms through which corrective information can fail to shift policy attitudes.
“Moreover, the inclusion of ideals exposed two potential mechanisms through which corrective information can fail to shift policy attitudes.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“By measuring ideals, this study furthermore identified two potential mechanisms through which corrective information can fail to shift policy attitudes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
- Interpretationreasoning
The pattern suggests that both Democrats and Republicans updated their ideals to make them consistent with their policy attitudes.
“This pattern suggests that both Democrats and Republicans updated their ideals to make them consistent with their policy attitudes.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Corrective information may have been unconvincing for Republicans because they do not believe a discrepancy between the current and ideal level of inequality justifies government intervention.
“Figure 2 suggests that corrective information may have been unconvincing for Republicans because they do not believe a discrepancy between the current and ideal level of inequality justifies government intervention.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisereasoning
The existing literature provides at least some indication that corrective information can induce attitude change in a way that decreases ideological polarization between Democrats and Republicans.
“the existing literature provides at least some indication that such corrective information can induce attitude change in a way that decreases ideological polarization between Democrats and Republicans.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The many null results of the information treatment reaffirm the limitations of this method for examining the attitudinal effects of factual beliefs.
“The many null results of the information treatment reaffirm the limitations of this method for examining the attitudinal effects of factual beliefs.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Although the priming method yielded significant results for only one of the four examined issues, this finding suggests that there are instances in which the addition of a priming condition can identify effects that would have remained undetected with only an information treatment.
“Although this method yielded significant results for only one of the four examined issues, this finding nonetheless suggests that there are instances in which the addition of a priming condition can identify effects that would have remained undetected with only an information treatment.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation
The study's findings are consistent with a previous study which revealed that corrective information on income inequality can change people's ideals, but not directional policy attitudes.
“Overall, this study's findings are, therefore, consistent with a previous study which revealed that corrective information on income inequality can change people's ideals, but not directional policy attitudes (Trump, 2018).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Trump, 2018 source
- Interpretationreasoning
When Democrats were informed about the current defense expenditure, they decreased their ideal level of spending to maintain their position that defense spending should be decreased.
“When Democrats were informed about the current defense expenditure, they simply decreased their ideal level of spending to maintain their position that defense spending should be decreased.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
When primed with their belief about defense spending, many Democrats seem to double down on their opposition to defense spending.
“When primed with this belief, many Democrats seem to double down on their opposition to defense spending.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
This study demonstrated that priming factual beliefs could be a promising method to gain a better understanding of the attitudinal effects of factual belief polarization.
“This study, however, also demonstrated that priming factual beliefs could be a promising method to gain a better understanding of the attitudinal effects of factual belief polarization.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
The observation that corrections of misperceptions often fail to change attitudes cannot be taken as evidence that factual beliefs themselves have no effect.
“the observation that corrections of misperceptions often fail to change attitudes cannot be taken as evidence that factual beliefs themselves have no effect.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Crucially, the observation that corrections of misperceptions often fail to change attitudes cannot be taken as evidence that factual beliefs themselves have no effect.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Flynn et al., 2017 source
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
- Study design and conductown data
The regression models in Supplementary Appendix S3 provide little indication that the effect of the experimental manipulation depends systematically on respondents' educational level or political interest.
“Finally, the regression models in Supplementary Appendix S3 provide little indication that the effect of the experimental manipulation depends systematically on respondents' educational level or political interest.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Both Democrats and Republicans have a rather accurate perception of the immigrant population.
“For immigration, Figure 2 depicts the normatively ideal situation that Democrats and Republicans differ only in their ideals, but not in their factual beliefs because both groups have a rather accurate perception.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The considerable magnitude of factual belief polarization suggests that it at least has the potential to fuel ideological and affective polarization.
“Although it does not in itself say anything about the direction of causality, the considerable magnitude of factual belief polarization suggests that it at least has a potential to fuel ideological and affective polarization.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Experimental research revealed that corrective information about the views and characteristics of political opponents can decrease affective polarization.
“experimental research revealed that corrective information about the views and characteristics of political opponents (as opposed to political issues) can decrease affective polarization (e.g., Ahler and Sood, 2018;Lees and Cikara, 2020).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Premisecitation
The ideological distance between Democrats and Republicans was not reduced by information about the share of the federal budget allocated to scientific research.
“The ideological distance between Democrats and Republicans was, however, not reduced by this information.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Goldfarb and Kriner, 2017 source
- Interpretationreasoning
Many Democrats may have had little reason to update their attitudes because their factual perception of income inequality was already close to the actual number.
“Meanwhile, many Democrats may have had little reason to update their attitudes because their factual perception was already close to the actual number.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Corrective information can fail to change policy attitudes when people update their ideals to maintain and rationalize their policy attitudes.
“Second, corrective information can fail to change policy attitudes when people update their ideals to maintain and rationalize their policy attitudes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The effect of priming on affective polarization around defense spending may be explained by the median Democrat greatly overestimating actual defense expenditure.
“Based on Figure 2, this effect may be explained by the pattern that the median Democrat greatly overestimates the actual defense expenditure.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- May combine two claims. 22
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 20
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationIn that study, consensus messages decreased ideological polarization by being more effective among conservatives than among liberals.
“Moreover, the consensus messages in this study decreased ideological polarization by being more effective among conservatives than among liberals.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Van der Linden et al., 2019 source
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationAnother study found that consensus messages effectively increased people's belief in global warming, as well as their support for climate action.
“another study, however, found that consensus messages effectively increased people's belief in global warming, as well as their support for climate action (Van der Linden et al., 2019).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Van der Linden et al., 2019 source
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationFactual belief polarization may be fueled by increasing levels of affective polarization.
“Likewise, factual belief polarization may also be fueled by increasing levels of affective polarization (Broockman et al., 2023;Jenke, 2023).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checkedMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataNeither Democrats nor Republicans changed their policy attitudes when informed about income inequality.
“The results show that neither Democrats nor Republicans changed their policy attitudes when they were informed about income inequality.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe study found no evidence that informing Democrats and Republicans with factual information can bring them closer together in either their policy attitudes or their feelings toward each other.
“Nonetheless, this study found no evidence that informing Democrats and Republicans with factual information can bring them closer together in either their policy attitudes or their feelings toward each other.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataAdherents of both parties overestimate the amount of defense spending, but Democrats overestimate the actual number much more than Republicans.
“Finally, adherents of both parties overestimate the amount of defense spending, but Democrats overestimate the actual number much more than Republicans.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataFor income differences and defense spending, the difference between Democrats and Republicans was non-significantly in the same direction, with beliefs more divided than ideals.
“a non-significant effect in the same direction was found for income differences and defense spending.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataInformed Democrats typically indicated an ideal defense spending level slightly lower than current expenditure, while most Republicans provided a somewhat higher number.
“Informed Democrats typically indicated an ideal that is slightly lower than the current defense expenditure, while most Republicans provided a somewhat higher number.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataCorrective information significantly reduced the ideological distance between Democrats and Republicans on income differences and defense spending, but not on immigration and climate change.
“The results for ideals revealed that corrective information significantly reduced the ideological distance between Democrats and Republicans on the issues of income differences and defense spending, but not immigration and climate change.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Corrective information did, however, reduce the distance between Democrats' and Republicans' ideals about income inequality and defense spending.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataDemocrats and Republicans differ widely in their factual beliefs about the income distribution, and the median voter substantially underestimates income inequality.
“About the income distribution, Democrats and Republicans differ widely in their factual beliefs and the median voter substantially underestimates income inequality.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenThe study was preregistered on OSF with a preanalysis plan and approved by the ethics committee of the University of Amsterdam prior to data collection.
“Prior to the data collection, this study (including a preanalysis plan) was preregistered on OSF and approved by the ethics committee of the University of Amsterdam.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataThe only clear difference between the recruited sample and the ANES sample is age distribution: older voters are overrepresented in the ANES, while younger voters are overrepresented in the present sample.
“The only clear difference between both samples lies in the age distribution: whereas older voters are overrepresented in the ANES, younger voters are overrepresented in the present sample.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataRandomization checks confirmed that the assigned condition was unassociated with gender, race, educational level, liberal-conservative ideology, and political interest.
“Randomization checks confirmed that the assigned condition was unassociated with gender (p = 0.90), race (p = 0.84), educational level (p = 0.94), liberal-conservative ideology (p = 0.58), and political interest (p = 0.25).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductown dataParticipants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions: control, priming, and correction.
“The remaining participants (N = 2,054; 91.2%) were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions: a control condition, a priming condition, and a correction condition.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationAnother study found that Democrats and Republicans are about equally divided in their beliefs and ideals about income inequality.
“Using the same measure, another study found that both groups are about equally divided in their beliefs and ideals about income inequality (Norton and Ariely, 2011).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Norton and Ariely, 2011 source
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationSome studies suggest that consensus messages can backfire among conservatives and Republicans, leading them to report lower levels of belief in global warming and less support for climate policies.
“some studies suggest that consensus messages can even backfire among conservatives and Republicans, leading them to report lower levels of belief in global warming and less support for climate policies (Cook and Lewandowsky, 2016;Bolsen and Druckman, 2018;Ma et al., 2019).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationSurvey experiments revealed that informing participants about the racial composition or the share of foreign-born citizens in the US did little to change their attitudes toward immigration, even though the information improved the accuracy of their factual beliefs.
“Survey experiments revealed that informing participants about the racial composition or the share of foreignborn citizens in the US did little to change their attitudes toward immigration, even though the information improved the accuracy of their factual beliefs (Lawrence and Sides, 2014;Hopkins et al., 2019).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checkedMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationRegarding climate change, 83% of Democrats believe that global warming is caused by human activity, but only 43% of Republicans share this position.
“Regarding climate change, 83% of Democrats believe that global warming is caused by human activity, but only 43% of Republicans share this position (Dunlap et al., 2016).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Dunlap et al., 2016 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationRepublicans assume a lower level of defense spending than Democrats.
“and a lower level of defense spending (Lee et al., 2021).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Lee et al., 2021 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationRepublicans assume a more egalitarian income distribution than Democrats.
“Likewise, Republicans assume a more egalitarian income distribution than Democrats (Boudreau and MacKenzie, 2018)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Boudreau and MacKenzie, 2018 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationInformed participants updated their ideals about what a fair income distribution would look like.
“another survey experiment showed that informed participants updated their ideals about what a fair income distribution would look like, but not their policy attitudes toward redistribution (Trump, 2018).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Trump, 2018 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationA survey among Californians found that Democrats and Republicans differ more in their factual beliefs about income differences than in their ideals about what a fair income distribution would look like.
“a survey among Californians found that Democrats and Republicans differ more in their factual beliefs about income differences than in their ideals about what a fair income distribution would look like (Boudreau and MacKenzie, 2018).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Boudreau and MacKenzie, 2018 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationInformed participants did not update their policy attitudes toward redistribution.
“another survey experiment showed that informed participants updated their ideals about what a fair income distribution would look like, but not their policy attitudes toward redistribution (Trump, 2018).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Trump, 2018 source
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataFactual belief polarization could be a source of ideological and affective polarization around defense spending, even though corrective information failed to bring Democrats and Republicans closer together.
“This finding suggests that factual belief polarization could be a source of ideological and affective polarization around this issue, even though corrective information failed to bring Democrats and Republicans closer together.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationAs a result of the question order, the cognitive accessibility of factual beliefs is temporarily increased and participants may unintentionally express their policy attitudes with their factual beliefs in mind.
“As a result of this question order, the cognitive accessibility of factual beliefs is temporarily increased and participants may unintentionally express their policy attitudes with their factual beliefs in mind (Kuklinski et al., 2000;Tourangeau et al., 2000).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checkedMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningRepublicans generally seem to view these ideals as irrelevant for their policy attitudes and fundamentally reject the idea of government redistribution.
“However, Republicans generally seem to view these ideals as irrelevant for their policy attitudes and fundamentally reject the idea of government redistribution.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataThe pre-registered analyses yield similar results and conclusions as the presented main analyses.
“The pre-registered analyses, which are displayed in Supplementary Appendix S2, yield similar results and conclusions as the presented main analyses.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe effect of priming on affective polarization around climate change was not significant for either Democrats or Republicans separately, but Table 2 hints that especially Republicans became less affectively polarized by reflecting on their own climate change beliefs.
“This effect was not significant for either Democrats or Republicans separately, but Table 2 hints that especially Republicans became less affectively polarized by reflecting on their own climate change beliefs.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationA previous study on income differences demonstrated that ideals might be more responsive to corrective information than directional policy attitudes.
“A previous study on income differences demonstrated that such ideals might be more responsive to corrective information than directional policy attitudes (Trump, 2018).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Trump, 2018 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningInformed Republicans may have increased their required level of certainty for climate action as a way to rationalize not changing their policy attitudes.
“Many informed Republicans also increased their required level of certainty for climate action, perhaps as a way to rationalize not changing their policy attitudes.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoningThe approach of merging ideals from the control condition and beliefs from the priming condition ensured that none of the hypothesized question order effects could influence the results for RQ1.
“This approach ensured that none of the hypothesized question order effects could influence the results for this descriptive research question.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
PremisereasoningPrevious research provides some, but not conclusive, evidence for the hypothesized effect of corrective information for each of the four policy domains.
“previous research provides some, but not conclusive, evidence for the hypothesized effect of corrective information for each of the four policy domains.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The four issues examined (income differences, immigration, climate change, and defense spending) are key issues in American politics.
May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe null results for corrective information indicate that informed participants changed their factual beliefs but not their opinions.
“In this light, the null results for corrective information indicate that informed participants changed their factual beliefs but not their opinions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductreasoningThe presented analyses deviate in three ways from the preregistration.
“The presented analyses deviate in three ways from the preregistration.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Interpretationnone givenCorrective information may have failed to change immigration attitudes because both Democrats and Republicans already had a fairly accurate perception of the immigrant population.
“Likewise, corrective information may have failed to change immigration attitudes because both Democrats and Republicans already had a fairly accurate perception of the immigrant population.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe factual information presented in the correction condition was based on reports from the OECD (2016), Pew Research Center (2020), IPCC (2021), and CBO (2021).
“The factual information in these messages was based respectively on reports from the OECD (2016), Pew Research Center (2020), the IPCC (2021), and the CBO (2021).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites OECD (2016)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Pew Research Center (2020)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites IPCC (2021)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningThe strong main effects of the information treatment on ideals demonstrate that the manipulation was successful and that participants processed the information.
“The strong main effects of the information treatment on ideals, therefore, demonstrate that the manipulation was successful and that participants processed the information.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningFor immigration, the lack of a priming effect may be explained by the fact that Democrats and Republicans had similar beliefs about the immigrant population to begin with.
“For immigration, the lack of a priming effect may be explained by the fact that Democrats and Republicans had similar beliefs about the immigrant population to begin with.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoningThe study relied on an indirect manipulation check by examining the main effect of the information treatment on respondents' ideals.
“Instead, this study therefore relied on an indirect manipulation check by examining the main effect of the information treatment on respondents' ideals.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
The authors state this as an assumption.
Participants will use the primed discrepancy between their factual belief and their ideal to answer the policy attitude question.
“As a result, it is likely that participants will use this primed discrepancy to answer the question on their policy attitude.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The four issues examined (income differences, immigration, climate change, and defense spending) are key issues in American politics.
“four key issues in American politics: the income distribution, the immigrant population, the climate consensus, and the defense expenditure.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Priming involves an unconscious cognitive process.
“Because priming involves an unconscious cognitive process, it is unfortunately not possible to distinguish between both possibilities with a manipulation check.”
Cites
The Psychology of Survey Response
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511819322 · Cited by 4,734 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034 · Cited by 3,317 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Political Polarization in the American Public
Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2008) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836 · Cited by 1,798 · see citing works
On the Nature of Reactance and its Role in Persuasive Health Communication
Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005) · Communication Monographs · doi:10.1080/03637750500111815 · Cited by 1,571 · see citing works
Category accessibility and impression formation
Higgins, E. T., Rholes, W. S., & Jones, C. R. (1977) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0022-1031(77)80007-3 · Cited by 1,502 · see citing works
Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1017/s0022381608080493 · Cited by 1,308 · see citing works
The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs About Politics
Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2017) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12394 · Cited by 1,183 · see citing works
Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship
Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., & Rich, R. F. (2000) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1111/0022-3816.00033 · Cited by 1,167 · see citing works
The public as thermostat: dynamics of preferences for spending
Wlezien, C. (1995) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2111666 · Cited by 1,154 · see citing works
Building a Better America—One Wealth Quintile at a Time
Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2011) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691610393524 · Cited by 1,119 · see citing works
Debunking: A Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Efficacy of Messages Countering Misinformation
Chan, M.-P. S., Jones, C. R., Hall Jamieson, K., & Albarracín, D. (2017) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797617714579 · Cited by 898 · see citing works
The Political Divide on Climate Change: Partisan Polarization Widens in the U.S.
Dunlap, R. E., McCright, A. M., & Yarosh, J. H. (2016) · Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1080/00139157.2016.1208995 · Cited by 786 · see citing works
Political ignorance and collective policy preferences
Gilens, M. (2001) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055401002222 · Cited by 764 · see citing works
The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: experimental evidence
van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D., & Maibach, E. W. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118489 · Cited by 661 · see citing works
Mass polarization: Manifestations and measurements
Lelkes, Y. (2016) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfw005 · Cited by 591 · see citing works
The Parties in Our Heads: Misperceptions about Party Composition and Their Consequences
Ahler, D. J., & Sood, G. (2018) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/697253 · Cited by 586 · see citing works
How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation
Walter, N., & Murphy, S. T. (2018) · Communication Monographs · doi:10.1080/03637751.2018.1467564 · Cited by 561 · see citing works
The muted consequences of correct information about immigration
Hopkins, D. J., Sides, J., & Citrin, J. (2019) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/699914 · Cited by 415 · see citing works
Rational irrationality: modeling climate change belief polarization using Bayesian networks
Cook, J., & Lewandowsky, S. (2016) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.12186 · Cited by 332 · see citing works
Rains, S. A., & Turner, M. M. (2007) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00298.x · Cited by 329 · see citing works
Does affective polarization undermine democratic norms or accountability? Maybe not
Broockman, D. E., Kalla, J. L., & Westwood, S. J. (2023) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12719 · Cited by 297 · see citing works
Weingarten, E., Chen, Q.-J., McAdams, M., Yi, J., Hepler, J., & Albarracín, D. (2015) · Psychological bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000030 · Cited by 275 · see citing works
The gateway belief model: a large-scale replication
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2019) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.009 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts
Lees, J., & Cikara, M. (2019) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0766-4 · Cited by 259 · see citing works
Does information change attitudes toward immigrants?
Grigorieff, A., Roth, C., & Ubfal, D. (2020) · Demography · doi:10.1007/s13524-020-00882-8 · Cited by 254 · see citing works
Facts and Myths about Misperceptions
Nyhan, B. J. (2020) · The Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.34.3.220 · Cited by 251 · see citing works
The Polarization of Contemporary American Politics
Hare, C., & Poole, K. T. (2014) · Polity · doi:10.1057/pol.2014.10 · Cited by 247 · see citing works
Income inequality influences perceptions of legitimate income differences
Trump, K.-S. (2018) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123416000326 · Cited by 236 · see citing works
Bolsen, T., & Druckman, J. N. (2018) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/1368430217737855 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
Exposure to rising inequality shapes Americans' opportunity beliefs and policy support
McCall, L., Burk, D., Laperrière, M., & Richeson, J. A. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1706253114 · Cited by 226 · see citing works
Improving Climate Change Acceptance Among U.S. Conservatives Through Value-Based Message Targeting
Dixon, G., Hmielowski, J., & Ma, Y. (2017) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547017715473 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Innumeracy about minority populations
Nadeau, R., Niemi, R. G., & Levine, J. (1993) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/269379 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
The nature and origins of political polarization over science
Rekker, R. (2021) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662521989193 · Cited by 195 · see citing works
Self-citationMa, Y., Dixon, G., & Hmielowski, J. D. (2018) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2018.1548369 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
The Effect of Information Provision on Public Consensus about Climate Change
Deryugina, T., & Shurchkov, O. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151469 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
The consequences of political innumeracy
Lawrence, E. D., & Sides, J. (2014) · Research & Politics · doi:10.1177/2053168014545414 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
Boudreau, C., & MacKenzie, S. A. (2018) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/694784 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Affective polarization and misinformation belief
Jenke, L. (2024) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-022-09851-w · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Too many immigrants? Examining alternative forms of immigrant population innumeracy
Herda, D. (2013) · Sociological Perspectives · doi:10.1525/sop.2013.56.2.213 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Attitudes Toward Economic Inequality: The Illusory Agreement
Pedersen, R. T., & Mutz, D. C. (2019) · Political Science Research and Methods · doi:10.1017/psrm.2018.18 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Scotto, T. J., Reifler, J., Hudson, D., & vanHeerde-Hudson, J. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Political Science · doi:10.1017/xps.2017.6 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Jørgensen, F. J., & Osmundsen, M. (2022) · Journal of Experimental Political Science · doi:10.1017/xps.2020.35 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Climate Change Consensus Messages Cause Reactance
Chinn, S., & Hart, P. S. (2021) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2021.1910530 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
The Polarization of Contemporary American PoliticsPreprint
Hare, C., & Poole, K. T. (2013) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3363227 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Media Reflect! Policy, the Public, and the News
WLEZIEN, C., & SOROKA, S. (2024) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055423000874 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Lee, N., Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Flynn, D. J. (2021) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s000712342000037x · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Becker, B. (2020) · Social Justice Research · doi:10.1007/s11211-019-00343-7 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Rekker, R., & Harteveld, E. (2024) · Acta Politica · doi:10.1057/s41269-022-00265-4 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Self-citationGoldfarb, J. L., & Kriner, D. L. (2017) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547016688325 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Marino, M., Iacono, R., & Mollerstrom, J. (2024) · European Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2024.102578 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Political Polarization Over Factual Beliefs
Rekker, R. (2022) · Knowledge Resistance in High-Choice Information Environments · doi:10.4324/9781003111474-12 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Self-citationJocker, T., van der Brug, W., & Rekker, R. (2024) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-024-09917-x · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Self-citationScotto, T. R., Reifler, J., Hudson, D., et al. (2017) · Harvard Dataverse · doi:10.7910/dvn/fzcxvn
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Bargh, 2000, “Studying the mind in the middle: a practical guide to priming and automaticity research,”, 253
- 2021, The federal budget in fiscal year 2020: An infographic.
- Howell, 2009, Educating the public, Educ. Next, 9, 41
- 2021, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Base.
- 2016, OECD Factbook: Economic, environmental and social statistics 2015-2016.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AuBuchon, K. E., Stock, M. L., Raibley, E., Carter‐Sowell, A. R., & Poppen, P. J. (2025) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/jasp.13092 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Porat, I., & Cohen‐Eliya, M. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009331920.004
Porat, I., & Cohen‐Eliya, M. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009331920.002
Agenda-building and agenda-cutting in U.S. media coverage of international student visa restrictions
Shekh, B. (2026) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2026.1889064
- Authors
- Rekker, R.
- Affiliations
- Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Rekker, Roderik
- ORCID
- Rekker, Roderik
- Venue
- Frontiers in Political Science
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2024-08-27
- Volume
- 6
- ISSN
- 2673-3145 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4401931040
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 6.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Political Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Riksbankens Jubileumsfond
- 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
- ideological polarization, affective polarization, partisan attitudes, corrective information, income inequality, immigration, climate change, defense spending
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
