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."

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.

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.

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/...