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.

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...

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.

Finding 2: We found no support for the hypothesis that causal evidence would be particularly compelling for Republicans; instead, *both* treatments had stronger effects on Republicans than Democrats.

Finding 1: The causal treatment was more effective in increasing belief in human influence on climate change than consensus messaging, but the difference was not as substantial or consistent as we initially expected.

A new paper with Ruijun Liu (my undergraduate student at the start of our study) is now published in Research & Politics: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

I have a working paper that addresses that issue: osf.io/preprints/os... I found that l information about the ACA about changes *both* beliefs and attitudes (screen shot), but there's a condition that that doesn't happen: when the information is delivered in a hostile context.