New Letter out in @PsychScience with @STWorg. Great exchange with @PsySciLab & @AvStekelenburg on whether "scientific consensus" can correct influential misperceptions.
Paper: bit.ly/3gtgcaU
Some thoughts on what we've learned re accuracy & partisan motivations (1/13)
Paper: bit.ly/3gtgcaU
Some thoughts on what we've learned re accuracy & partisan motivations (1/13)
First, let's trash the knowledge or "information-deficit" versus "social or political identity" distinction. We all agree this a false dilemma that gets us nowhere. Most information is imbued with social & cultural meanings. Though maybe not hard statistics? Think again (2/13)
Even facts such as "97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming" is not just a fact. It is also a descriptive norm: it informs us about a powerful group consensus. But (some) people don't care about expert consensus? (3/13)
It is true that polarization exists on the value of science in society (see Pew) & has increased for some hot-button issues (e.g., COVID).
Key reasoning error: because partisans are polarized on some issues (e.g. global warming) they won't respond to scientific consensus (4/13)
Key reasoning error: because partisans are polarized on some issues (e.g. global warming) they won't respond to scientific consensus (4/13)
Prior beliefs not causally disentangled from partisan motivations so maybe people ARE accuracy-oriented but dismiss experts because of selective exposure to one-side (not because of sinister political motivations). @PsySciLab & @njzarzeczna have another good hypothesis (5/13)
@AvStekelenburg finds that scientific consensus corrected influential misperceptions on GMOs but not climate. So perhaps scientific consensus is useful when the conflict over science is not deeply motivated by politics (such as on GMOs)? Fair observation but not universal (6/13)
Great work from @PsySciLab finds that boosting knowledge works for GMOs. But why not climate or COVID? Ideological conflict is not a sufficient condition to suggest information is powerless (7/13)
In two diff studies (& many others), @STWorg and I find that although (1) there is a clear and BIG main effect of ideology, (2) exposure to scientific consensus can help neutralize political polarization. Experts can also depolarize COVID debates pnas.org/content/119/3/… (8/13)
So the situation is more nuanced. Perhaps effect is lower for those who deeply distrust experts or science, but actual risk of BACKFIRE seems extremely small for facts. So what's the harm? (9/13)
If anything, communicating scientific consensus can help inoculate and counter contrarian views and false balance in the media. It is an important tool in the communication toolbox with pretty much no negative effects on those with uncongenial attitudes (10/13).
What we need is integration: people have accuracy, social, & political motivations. The situation is going to determine how people prioritize these for any given issue. But even when identity motivations are primary this doesn't mean accuracy is always out the window (11/13)
In fact, important work out there from @SalilBenegal which shows that combining these approaches yields good results. For example, having the scientific consensus on climate change presented by prototypical in-group (Republican) members can increase its effectiveness (12/13).
@steverathje2 doing great work on manipulating accuracy & social motivations to determine how people form judgments about (mis)information when facing competing motives psyarxiv.com/hkqyv/
We all agreed that ideology matters A LOT but so does accuracy - it's a dance (13/13).
We all agreed that ideology matters A LOT but so does accuracy - it's a dance (13/13).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
