Evidence Can Change Partisan Minds but Less So in Hostile Contexts

Evidence and Partisan Persuasion

Abstract

• Political persuasion often faces challenges due to partisan motivated reasoning.

• New scholarship suggests that people sometimes accept incongruent information.

• Two survey experiments investigate conditions under which partisans dismiss or accept such information.

• Results show that without affective triggers, partisans are persuadable by both aligned and opposite information.

• Hostile contexts lead to increased dismissal of opposing views and greater disagreement post-exposure.

Key Findings

1. Resistance Triggers: Hostility amplifies partisan resistance to incongruent information.

2. Clarifying Motivated Reasoning: Experiments demonstrate clearer instances of partisan motivated reasoning.

3. Political Discourse Quality: Elite discourse impacts citizen opinion formation significantly.

Keywords

• Partisan motivated reasoning

• Resistance to persuasion

• Hostile context

• Affective polarization

• Evidence strength

Partisan Minds and Evidence

• Donald Trump's assertion exemplifies the resilience of partisan loyalty against contradictory evidence.

• Claims that evidence cannot sway loyal supporters reflect broader academic perspectives on biased information processing.

• Partisan motivated reasoning suggests strong emotional ties drive defense of political opinions.

• The discourse indicates a belief in misperceptions resulting from partisan biases leading to reduced democratic accountability.

Rethinking Partisan Resistance

• Several studies noted that partisan minds can change, contradicting assumptions about inevitable resistance.

• Motivation to affirm existing beliefs causes selective dismissal of incongruent evidence.

• Prior literature conflates various motivations behind resistance, complicating understanding of when change occurs.

The Role of Evidence and Context in Resistance

• Previous work often did not randomize directional motivation, impacting conclusions about evidence acceptance.

• This study utilizes randomized experimental designs to analyze updates in opinions regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

• Key hypotheses address how evidence strength correlates with partisan resistance.

Study Design and Hypothesized Outcomes

Evaluation of Contexts

• Experimental conditions included manipulations of emotional state (e.g., feeling adversarial) to measure resistance.

• Goals include testing whether partisan sentiments enhance biased interpretation of evidence.

Survey Experiments

• Two substantial experiments were conducted targeting the ACA discourse, measuring both attitudes and beliefs post-exposition.

• Results from various conditions help disentangle effects of emotional context on motivated reasoning.

Findings Overview

1. Non-hostile Contexts: Democrats and Republicans updated opinions similarly, regardless of evidence alignment.

2. Hostile Contexts: Induced adversarial feelings led to increased partisan disagreement regardless of evidence.

3. Evidence Strength: Stronger evidence did not uniformly change resistance patterns; context plays a significant role in shaping reactions.

Implications and Conclusions

• Findings suggest context—not merely the incongruity of information—primarily drives partisan resistance.

• Political leaders' role in discourse significantly informs citizens’ decision-making processes.

• Methodological concerns arise from conventional experiments that may not capture the true effects of hostility on persuasion, implying varying degrees of actual opinion formation.

Future Directions

• Further investigation needed into long-term perceptions regarding partisan bias and how information decay unfolds in relation to partisan attitudes.

• Solidify the importance of fostering a healthy political discourse environment as a means to mitigate partisan motivated reasoning.