We draw from theories of motivated reasoning, dual-processing models, and attribution of responsibility to examine how scientific messages may increase public polarization with respect to emerging risk issues such as Lyme disease. A nationally representative sample of Americans (N = 460) read messages about Lyme disease that varied the framing of responsibility for the prevalence of the disease (human/wildlife vs. wildlife only) and when its effects will occur (today vs. in the next 10 years). The influence of framing was contingent on participants’ partisanship, which resulted in a boomerang effect among Republicans and increased the degree of political polarization regarding support for proenvironmental behaviors.
BombergE.SchlosbergD. (2008). US environmentalism in comparative perspective. Environmental Politics, 17, 337-348. doi:10.1080/09644010801936263
2.
BordR. J.O’ConnorR. E.FisherA. (2000). In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change?Public Understanding of Science, 9, 205-218. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/301
3.
BoykoffM. T.BoykoffJ. M. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14, 125-136.
4.
ByrneS.HartP. S. (2009). The “boomerang” effect: A synthesis of findings and a preliminary theoretical framework. In BeckC. (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 33, pp. 3-37). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
CallegaroM.DiSograC. (2009). Computing response metrics for online panels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 1008-1032. doi:10.1093/poq/nfn065
ChaikenS. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information-processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
9.
ChandranS.MenonG. (2004). When a day means more than a year: Effects of temporal framing on judgments of health risk. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 375-389. doi:10.1086/422116
10.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101, 637-655. doi:10.1017/S0003055407070554
11.
CutlerS. J.FooksA. R.van der PoelW. H. (2010). Public health threat of new, reemerging, and neglected zoonoses in the industrialized world. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 16(1), 1-7. doi:10.3201/eid1601.081467
12.
DeckerD. J.SiemerW. F.WildM. A.CastleK. T.WongD.LeongK. M.EvensenD. T. N. (2011). Communicating about zoonotic disease: Strategic considerations for wildlife professionals. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 35, 112-119. doi:10.1002/wsb.29
13.
DesJardinJ. R. (2005). Environmental ethics: Invitation to environmental philosophy (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.
14.
DittoP. H.LopezD. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 568-584. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.568
15.
DruckmanJ. N. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23, 225-256.
16.
DruckmanJ. N.BolsenT. (2011). Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication, 61, 659-688. doi:10.1111/J.1460-2466.2011.01562.X
17.
DunlapR. E.AllenM. P. (1976). Partisan differences on environmental issues: A congressional roll-call analysis. Western Political Quarterly, 29, 384.
18.
DunlapR. E.XiaoC.McCrightA. M. (2001). Politics and environment in America: Partisan and ideological cleavages in public support for environmentalism. Environmental Politics, 10, 23-48. doi:10.1080/714000580
19.
EntmanR. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
EyalT.LibermanN.TropeY. (2008). Judging near and distant virtue and vice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1204-1209. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.012
22.
GollustS. E.CappellaJ. N. (2014). Understanding public resistance to messages about health disparities. Journal of Health Communication, 19, 493-510. doi:10.1080/10810730.2013.821561
23.
GollustS. E.LantzP. M.UbelP. A. (2009). The polarizing effect of news media messages about the social determinants of health. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 2160-2167.
24.
HalpennyE. A. (2010). Pro-environmental behaviours and park visitors: The effect of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 409-421. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.006
25.
HartP. S.NisbetE. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39, 701-723. doi:10.1177/0093650211416646
26.
HawkinsC. B.NosekB. A. (2012). Motivated independence? Implicit party identity predicts political judgments among self-proclaimed Independents. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1437-1452. doi:10.1177/0146167212452313
27.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
28.
HoweP. D.LeiserowitzA. (2013). Who remembers a hot summer or a cold winter? The asymmetric effect of beliefs about global warming on perceptions of local climate conditions in the U.S. Global Environmental Change, 23, 1488-1500. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.09.014
29.
IyengarS. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: Univeristy of Chicago Press.
30.
KahanD. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407-424.
31.
KahnL. H.KaplanB.MonathT. P.SteeleJ. H. (2008). Teaching “One Medicine, One Health.”American Journal of Medicine, 121, 169-170. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2007.09.023
32.
KeesingF.BeldenL. K.DaszakP.DobsonA.HarvellC. D.HoltR. D.. . .OstfeldR. S. (2010). Impacts of biodiversity on the emergence and transmission of infectious diseases. Nature, 468, 647-652. doi:10.1038/nature09575
33.
KeithB. E.MaglebyD. B.NelsonC. J.OrrE.WestlyeM. C.WolfingerR. E. (1992). The myth of the independent voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.
34.
KenskiH. C.KenskiM. C. (1980). Partisanship, ideology, and constituency differences on environmental issues in the US House of Representatives: 1973–78. Policy Studies Journal, 9, 325-335. doi:10.1111/1541-0072.ep11817502
KrosnickJ. A.HolbrookA. L.LoweL.VisserP. S. (2006). The origins and consequences of democratic citizens’ policy agendas: A study of popular concern about global warming. Climate Change, 77(1-2), 7-43. doi:10.1007/S10584-006-9068-8
37.
KrosnickJ. A.HolbrookA. L.VisserP. S. (2000). The impact of the fall 1997 debate about global warming on American public opinion. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 239-260. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/303
38.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
39.
LeviT.KilpatrickA. M.MangelM.WilmersC. C. (2012). Deer, predators, and the emergence of Lyme disease. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 10942-10947. doi:10.1073/pnas.1204536109
40.
LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. H.SeifertC. M.SchwarzN.CookJ. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106-131. doi:10.1177/1529100612451018
41.
MaibachE. W.NisbetM. C.BaldwinP.AkerlofK.DiaoG. Q. (2010). Reframing climate change as a public health issue: An exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health, 10, 299. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-299
42.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001-2010. Sociological Quarterly, 52, 155-194. doi:10.1111/J.1533-8525.2011.01198.X
43.
McElroyT.MascariD. (2007). When is it going to happen? How temporal distance influences processing for risky-choice framing tasks. Social Cognition, 25, 495-517. doi:10.1521/soco.2007.25.4.495
44.
McElroyT.SetaJ. J. (2003). Framing effects: An analytic–holistic perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 610-617. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00036-2
45.
MooneyC. (2012). The Republican brain: The science of why they deny science and reality. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
46.
MullerD.JuddC. M.YzerbytV. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Personality, 89, 852-863. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852
47.
NelkinD. (1987). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
48.
NisbetE. C.HartP. S.MyersT.EllithorpeM. (2013). Attitude change in competitive framing environments? Open-/closed-mindedness, framing effects, and climate change. Journal of Communication, 63, 766-785. doi:10.1111/jcom.12040
49.
O’ConnorR. E.BordR. J.YarnalB.WiefekN. (2002). Who wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?Social Science Quarterly, 83, 1-17. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.00067
50.
OjalaM.LidskogR. (2011). What lies beneath the surface? A case study of citizens’ moral reasoning with regard to biodiversity. Environmental Values, 20, 217-237. doi:10.3197/096327111x12997574391760
51.
PeffleyM.HurwitzJ. (2007). Persuasion and resistance: Race and the death penality in America. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 996-1012.
52.
PetrocikJ. R. (2009). Measuring party support: Leaners are not independents. Electoral Studies, 28, 562-572. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2009.05.022
53.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York NY: Springer.
54.
PettyR. E.RuckerD. D.BizerG. Y.CacioppoJ. T. (2004). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In SeisterJ. S.GassR. H. (Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (pp. 65-89). Boston, MA: Pearson.
55.
RockM.BuntainB. J.HatfieldJ. M.HallgrimssonB. (2009). Animal-human connections, “One Health,” and the syndemic approach to prevention. Social Science & Medicine, 68, 991-995. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.12.047
56.
RohS.HancockJ. T. (2014). Ideology. In LevineT. R. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of deception (pp. 496-499). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57.
SchuldtJ. P.RohS. (2014). Of accessibility and applicability: How heat-related cues affect belief in “global warming” versus “climate change.”Social Cognition, 32, 219-240.
58.
SingerM. C. (2009). Doorways in nature: Syndemics, zoonotics, and public health. A commentary on Rock, Buntain, Hatfield & Hallgrimsson. Social Science & Medicine, 68, 996-999. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.12.041
59.
SpenceA.PoortingaW.PidgeonN. (2012). The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Analysis, 32, 957-972. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x
60.
StenmarkM. (2002). Environmental ethics and policy-making. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
61.
TaberC. S.LodgeM. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769. doi:10.1111/J.1540-5907.2006.00214.X
62.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463. doi:10.1037/a0018963
63.
WeinerB. (2006). Social motivation, justice, and the moral emotions: An attributional approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
64.
ZwickleA.WilsonR. S. (2014). Construing risk: Implications for risk communication In ArvaiJ.RiversL. (Eds.), Effective risk communication (pp. 190-203). New York, NY: Routledge.
