Partisans' receptivity to persuasive messaging is undiminished by countervailing party leader cues.
Journal
Nature human behaviour
ISSN: 2397-3374
Titre abrégé: Nat Hum Behav
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101697750
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2023
04 2023
Historique:
received:
13
07
2022
accepted:
06
02
2023
medline:
17
5
2023
pubmed:
3
3
2023
entrez:
2
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
It is widely assumed that party identification and loyalty can distort partisans' information processing, diminishing their receptivity to counter-partisan arguments and evidence. Here we empirically evaluate this assumption. We test whether American partisans' receptivity to arguments and evidence is diminished by countervailing cues from in-party leaders (Donald Trump or Joe Biden), using a survey experiment with 24 contemporary policy issues and 48 persuasive messages containing arguments and evidence (N = 4,531; 22,499 observations). We find that, while in-party leader cues influenced partisans' attitudes, often more strongly than the persuasive messages, there was no evidence that the cues meaningfully diminished partisans' receptivity to the messages-despite them directly contradicting the messages. Rather, persuasive messages and countervailing leader cues were integrated as independent pieces of information. These results generalized across policy issues, demographic subgroups and cue environments, and challenge existing assumptions about the extent to which party identification and loyalty distort partisans' information processing.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36864137
doi: 10.1038/s41562-023-01551-7
pii: 10.1038/s41562-023-01551-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
568-582Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Druckman, J. N. A framework for the study of persuasion. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3849077 (2021).
Jackson, C. & Duran, J. Majority of Republicans still believe the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump. Ipsos https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/majority-republicans-still-believe-2020-election-was-stolen-donald-trump (2021).
Eggers, A. C., Garro, H. & Grimmer, J. No evidence for systematic voter fraud: a guide to statistical claims about the 2020 election. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2103619118 (2021).
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2103619118
pubmed: 34728563
pmcid: 8609310
Kiely, E., Robertson, L., Rieder, R. & Gore, D. The President’s trumped-up claims of voter fraud. FactCheck.org https://www.factcheck.org/2020/07/the-presidents-trumped-up-claims-of-voter-fraud/ (2020).
Brooks, B. Like the flu? Trump’s coronavirus messaging confuses public, pandemic researchers say. Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-mixed-messages/like-the-flu-trumps-coronavirus-messaging-confuses-public-pandemic-researchers-say-idUSKBN2102GY (2020).
Deane, C., Parker, K. & Gramlich, J. A year of U.S. public opinion on the coronavirus pandemic. Pew Research Center https://www.pewresearch.org/2021/03/05/a-year-of-u-s-public-opinion-on-the-coronavirus-pandemic/ (2021).
Summers, J. Timeline: how Trump has downplayed the coronavirus pandemic. NPR https://www.npr.org/sections/latest-updates-trump-covid-19-results/2020/10/02/919432383/how-trump-has-downplayed-the-coronavirus-pandemic (2020).
Leeper, T. J. & Slothuus, R. Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Polit. Psychol. 35, 129–156 (2014).
doi: 10.1111/pops.12164
Lenz, G. S. Follow the Leader? How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance (Univ. Chicago Press, 2012).
Zaller, J. R. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992).
Coppock, A. Persuasion in Parallel (Univ. Chicago Press, 2022).
Coppock, A. Positive, Small, Homogeneous, and Durable: Political Persuasion in Response to Information (Columbia Univ., 2016).
Guess, A. & Coppock, A. Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. Br. J. Polit. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123418000327 (2020).
Wood, T. & Porter, E. The elusive backfire effect: mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Polit. Behav. 41, 135–163 (2019).
doi: 10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E. & Stokes, D. E. The American Voter (Univ. Chicago Press, 1960).
Bartels, L. M. Beyond the running tally: partisan bias in political perceptions. Polit. Behav. 24, 117–150 (2002).
doi: 10.1023/A:1021226224601
Van Bavel, J. J. & Pereira, A. The partisan brain: an identity-based model of political belief. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22, 213–224 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.004
pubmed: 29475636
Barber, M. & Pope, J. C. Does party trump ideology? Disentangling party and ideology in America. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 113, 38–54 (2019).
doi: 10.1017/S0003055418000795
Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N. & Cook, F. L. The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Polit. Behav. 36, 235–262 (2014).
doi: 10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0
Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E. & Slothuus, R. How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 107, 57–79 (2013).
doi: 10.1017/S0003055412000500
Petersen, M. B., Skov, M., Serritzlew, S. & Ramsøy, T. Motivated reasoning and political parties: evidence for increased processing in the face of party cues. Polit. Behav. 35, 831–854 (2013).
doi: 10.1007/s11109-012-9213-1
Nickerson, D. W. & Rogers, T. Campaigns influence election outcomes less than you think. Science 369, 1181–1182 (2020).
doi: 10.1126/science.abb2437
pubmed: 32883859
Swigger, N., Buelow, M., Wirth, J. & Okdie, B. Partisans hear, but they don’t listen: testing the limits of partisanship in risky decision making. Am. Polit. Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221081252 (2022).
Guilbeault, D., Becker, J. & Centola, D. Social learning and partisan bias in the interpretation of climate trends. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 9714–9719 (2018).
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1722664115
pubmed: 30181271
pmcid: 6166837
Cohen, G. L. Party over policy: the dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 808–822 (2003).
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808
pubmed: 14599246
Bayes, R., Druckman, J. N., Goods, A. & Molden, D. C. When and how different motives can drive motivated political reasoning. Polit. Psychol. 41, 1031–1052 (2020).
doi: 10.1111/pops.12663
Tappin, B. M. Estimating the between-issue variation in party elite cue effects. Public Opin. Q. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/p48zb (2022).
Nyhan, B. Why the backfire effect does not explain the durability of political misperceptions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e1912440117 (2021).
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1912440117
pubmed: 33837144
pmcid: 8053951
Gelman, A. & Hill, J. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006).
McElreath, R. Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and STAN (CRC Press, 2020).
Slothuus, R. & Bisgaard, M. Party over pocketbook? How party cues influence opinion when citizens have a stake in policy. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 115, 1090–1096 (2021).
doi: 10.1017/S0003055421000332
Slothuus, R. Assessing the influence of political parties on public opinion: the challenge from pretreatment effects. Polit. Commun. 33, 302–327 (2016).
doi: 10.1080/10584609.2015.1052892
Clifford, S., Leeper, T. J. & Rainey, C. Increasing the generalizability of survey experiments using randomized topics: an application to party cues. Polit. Behav. (2023).
Taber, C. S. & Lodge, M. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 50, 755–769 (2006).
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
Nicholson, S. P. Polarizing Cues. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 56, 52–66 (2012).
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00541.x
Agadjanian, A. When do partisans stop following the leader? Polit. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1772418 (2020).
Bullock, J. G. Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 105, 496–515 (2011).
doi: 10.1017/S0003055411000165
Bullock, J. G. Party cues. In The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion (eds Suhay, E., Grofman, B. & Trechsel, A. H.) 129–150 (Oxford University Press, 2020).
Connors, E. C. The social dimension of political values. Polit. Behav. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s11109-019-09530-3 (2019).
Tetlock, P. E. Thinking the unthinkable: sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7, 320–324 (2003).
doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00135-9
pubmed: 12860191
Ciuk, D. J. & Yost, B. A. The effects of issue salience, elite influence, and policy content on public opinion. Polit. Commun. 33, 328–345 (2016).
doi: 10.1080/10584609.2015.1017629
Nicholson, S. P. Dominating cues and the limits of elite influence. J. Polit. 73, 1165–1177 (2011).
doi: 10.1017/S002238161100082X
Peterson, E. The scope of partisan influence on policy opinion. Polit. Psychol. 40, 335–353 (2019).
doi: 10.1111/pops.12495
Boudreau, C. & MacKenzie, S. A. Informing the electorate? How party cues and policy information affect public opinion about initiatives. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 58, 48–62 (2014).
doi: 10.1111/ajps.12054
Blumenau, J. & Lauderdale, B. E. The variable persuasiveness of political rhetoric. Am. J. Polit. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12703 (2022).
Yarkoni, T. The generalizability crisis. Behav. Brain Sci. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/jqw35 (2020).
O’Keefe, D. J. & Hoeken, H. Message design choices don’t make much difference to persuasiveness and can’t be counted on—not even when moderating conditions are specified. Front. Psychol. 12, 664160 (2021).
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.664160
pubmed: 34267703
pmcid: 8275937
Hewitt, L. & Tappin, B. M. Rank-heterogeneous effects of political messages: evidence from randomized survey experiments testing 59 video treatments. Preprint at psyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xk6t3 (2022).
Williams, D. The marketplace of rationalizations. Econ. Philos. 39, 99-123 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267121000389
Bürkner, P.-C. brms: an R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. J. Stat. Softw. 80, 1–28 (2017).
doi: 10.18637/jss.v080.i01
Gelman, A., Hill, J. & Yajima, M. Why we (usually) don’t have to worry about multiple comparisons. J. Res. Educ. Eff. 5, 189–211 (2012).
Ternovski, J., & Orr, L. A note on increases in inattentive online survey-takers since 2020. J. Quant. Descr. Digit. Media https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2022.002 (2022).