The Partisan Brain

TLDR

Political polarization of attitudes toward science is a growing concern, with the intrinsic thesis attributing it to psychological differences between conservatives and liberals and the contextual thesis attributing it to interacting institutional and psychological factors. The study evaluates evidence for intrinsic and contextual theses by developing and testing a model of audience response to dissonant science communication. A national online experiment with 1,500 participants examined audience reactions to conservative‑ and liberal‑dissonant science messages and their impact on trust in science. Both liberals and conservatives react negatively to dissonant science communication, reducing trust in science, and the study highlights implications for science communicators in the broader polarization debate.

Abstract

There has been deepening concern about political polarization in public attitudes toward the scientific community. The “intrinsic thesis” attributes this polarization to psychological deficiencies among conservatives as compared to liberals. The “contextual thesis” makes no such claims about inherent psychological differences between conservatives and liberals, but rather points to interacting institutional and psychological factors as the forces driving polarization. We evaluate the evidence for both theses in the context of developing and testing a theoretical model of audience response to dissonant science communication. Conducting a national online experiment ( N = 1,500), we examined audience reactions to both conservative-dissonant and liberal-dissonant science messages and consequences for trust in the scientific community. Our results suggest liberals and conservatives alike react negatively to dissonant science communication, resulting in diminished trust of the scientific community. We discuss how our findings link to the larger debate about political polarization of science and implications for science communicators.