From April 2025 -

Evidence Can Change Partisan Minds but Less So in Hostile Contexts - cup.org/3E7A4ja

"in the absence of affective triggers, partisans were persuaded by both congenial and uncongenial information"

- @jinwookim.bsky.social

#OpenAccess

New paper on misperceptions out in PNAS @pnas.org

www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...

Why do people overestimate the size of politically relevant groups (immigrant, LGBTQ, Jewish) and quantities (% of budget spent on foreign aid, % of refugees that are criminals)?🧵👇

My former postdoc @jinwookim.bsky.social shows how information can change beliefs but partisan hostility can undo and even reverse those effects - a fantastic paper that helps bridge conflicting findings in the research on these questions.

Hi Alex, thanks for your reply. I've learned a lot from your work! Yes, the uncivil messages included additional party cues (though even the civil ones used the term "Obamacare" etc) -- and I think that may have made party cues more salient or altered people's perceptions of the message "author."

New paper with @dianamejordan.bsky.social and sky-less Trent Ollerenshaw! We provide large-N tests of repeated measure designs in survey experiments, showing that they slightly attenuate ATEs relative to post-only designs, but provide large gains to precision. Thread below.

Preprint: osf.io/q6czp

It’s taken too long for this to come out, and I’ve probably pestered my colleagues and mentors about it far too many times. Grateful to all of them—but especially to @brendannyhan.bsky.social

Normatively, while motivated reasoning is often viewed as a sign of citizens’ inability to think rationally, these results suggest that its root cause may lie in political elites’ failure—or refusal—to foster a constructive information environment. doi.org/pgbr

Also, by showing that partisans—comparable in all other ways—either accept or reject uncongenial information depending on randomly induced variation in partisan sentiment, these results provide clearer evidence of partisan-motivated reasoning than prior studies.

So resistance to persuasion wasn’t triggered by opposing info itself, but by the hostile context in which it’s encountered. This means two things can be true: (1) partisans are open to persuasion; (2) they often engage in motivated reasoning in today’s information environment.

Without the affective triggers, Dems/Reps updated their beliefs *and* attitudes in the same direction. But when made to feel hostile first, they grew more dismissive of opposing information and ended up disagreeing more, not less, after considering the same facts.

I examine several conditions under which partisans may become especially resistant, drawing on two experiments—including one that randomly induced variation in affective polarization before presenting persuasive messages using either civil or uncivil language.

Partisans often seem unwavering in their support for a politician/policy, even when faced with opposing evidence. But recent studies show that partisans can be persuaded. So how can both be true? My new @bjpols.bsky.social ky.social paper explores this Q: doi.org/10.1017/S000...

Also, by showing that partisans—comparable in all other ways—either accept or reject uncongenial information depending on randomly induced variation in partisan sentiment, these results provide clearer evidence of partisan-motivated reasoning than prior studies.

So resistance to persuasion wasn’t triggered by opposing info itself, but by the hostile context in which it’s encountered. This means two things can be true: (1) partisans are open to persuasion; (2) they often engage in motivated reasoning in today’s information environment.

Without the affective triggers, Dems/Reps updated their beliefs *and* attitudes in the same direction. But when made to feel hostile first, they grew more dismissive of opposing information and ended up disagreeing more, not less, after considering the same facts.

I examine several conditions under which partisans may become especially resistant, drawing on two experiments—including one that randomly induced variation in affective polarization before presenting persuasive messages using either civil or uncivil language.

After a review process so long and intensive that the title changed twice, I'm excited/relieved that "How to Distinguish Motivated Reasoning from Bayesian Updating" is accepted at @polbehavior.bsky.social.

osf.io/preprints/os...

Here is how it's relevant for your Thanksgiving dinner 🦃👇

Took a crack at the Political Communication starter pack. Sorry for all the great folks I undoubtedly missed

go.bsky.app/J1U6jVe

Intergroup moral hypocrisy such that people were more forgiving of transgressions when they were committed by an in-group member than an out-group member

We found evidence of moral hypocrisy among partisans and minimal groups (via
@psychscience.bsky.social):
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1...

New study: How the relationship between education and antisemitism varies between countries journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

Key finding: Association b/w education & stereotype endorsement varies by whether countries supported statements against Holocaust denial & antisemitism

🧵 below

Interested in measuring Attentiveness in Self-Administered Surveys? Check out our new review piece published today in Public Opinion Quarterly:
doi.org/10.1093/poq/...

I am *extremely* happy to share that "The Rhetorical 'What Goes with What': Political Pundits and the Discursive Superstructure of Ideology in U.S. Politics" is conditionally accepted at Public Opinion Quarterly: osf.io/vwqnf

New w/my amazing students: Inoculation discourages consumption of news from unreliable sources, but fails to neutralize misinfo sites.dartmouth.edu/nyhan/files/...

Key findings:
-Inoculation warning re: fake experts reduces misinfo exposure
-But no measurable reduction in misinfo effect on beliefs

Overall, conveying scientific information seems to serve more as a remedy than a cure, reducing but not eliminating misperceptions about climate change and opposition to climate policies.
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...