We tested whether conservatives and liberals are similarly or differentially likely to deny scientific claims that conflict with their preferred conclusions. Participants were randomly assigned to read about a study with correct results that were either consistent or inconsistent with their attitude about one of several issues (e.g., carbon emissions). Participants were asked to interpret numerical results and decide what the study concluded. After being informed of the correct interpretation, participants rated how much they agreed with, found knowledgeable, and trusted the researchers’ correct interpretation. Both liberals and conservatives engaged in motivated interpretation of study results and denied the correct interpretation of those results when that interpretation conflicted with their attitudes. Our study suggests that the same motivational processes underlie differences in the political priorities of those on the left and the right.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (1977). Attitude–behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.
2.
BerinskyA. J.HuberG. A.LenzG. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351–368.
3.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T. & RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
4.
BrandtM. J.ReynaC.ChambersJ. R.CrawfordJ. T.WetherellG. (2014). The ideological-conflict hypothesis: Intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 27–34.
5.
ChambersJ. R.SchlenkerB. R.CollissonB. (2013). Ideology and prejudice: The role of value conflicts. Psychological Science, 24, 140–149.
6.
CharlesV. E.PolisC. B.SridharaS. K.BlumR. W. (2008). Abortion and long-term mental health outcomes: A systematic review of the evidence. Contraception, 78, 436–450.
7.
ConverseP. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In ApterD. (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York, NY: Free Press.
8.
CrawfordJ. T.PilanskiJ. M. (2014). Political intolerance, right and left. Political Psychology, 35, 841–851.
FeyginaI.JostJ. T.GoldsmithR. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change.”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 326–338.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.
13.
JostJ. T.NosekB. A.GoslingS. D. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 126–136.
14.
KahanD. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407–424.
15.
KahanD. M.Jenkins-SmithH.BramanD. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14, 147–174.
KirbyD. B. (2008). The impact of abstinence and comprehensive sex and STD/HIV education programs on adolescent sexual behavior. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 5, 18–27.
18.
KruglanskiA. W.WebsterD. M.KlemA. (1993). Motivated resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 861–876.
19.
LakatosI. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes: Philosophical papers (Vol. 1). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
20.
LewandowskyS.OberauerK. (2016). Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 217–222.
21.
LewandowskyS.OberauerK.GignacG. E. (2013). NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore, (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological Science, 24, 622–633.
22.
MarkowitzE. M.GoldbergL. R.AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2012). Profiling the “pro-environmental individual”: A personality perspective. Journal of Personality, 80, 81–111.
23.
McCraeR. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 323–337.
24.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52, 155–194.
NisbetM. C. (2005). The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 90–112.
30.
NosekB. A.BanajiM. R.JostJ. T. (2009). The politics of intergroup attitudes. In JostJ. T.KayA. C.ThorisdottirH. (Eds.), The social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 480–506). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
31.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303–330.
32.
PetersonM. B.SkovM.SerritzlewS.RamsoyT. (2013). Motivated reasoning and political parties: Evidence for increased processing in the face of party cues. Political Behavior, 35, 831–854.
SibleyC. G.DuckittJ. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 248–279.
36.
SkitkaL. J.MorganG. S.WisneskiD. C. (2015). Political orientation and moral conviction: A conservative advantage or an equal opportunity motivator of political engagement? In ForgasJ.FiedlerK.CranoW. D. (Eds.), Social psychology and politics (the 17th Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology). New York, NY: Routledge.
37.
SkitkaL. J.WashburnA. N. (2016). Are conservatives from Mars and liberals from Venus? Maybe not so much. In ValdesoloP.GrahamJ. (Eds.), Social psychology of political polarization (pp. 78–101). New York, NY: Routledge.
38.
StanovichK. E.WestR. F. (1998). Who uses base rates and P(D|H)? An analysis of individual differences. Memory & Cognition, 26, 161–179.
39.
TetlockP. E. (1983). Cognitive style and political ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 118–126.
40.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2009). United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD, 2005-2014). Review of Contexts and Structures for Education for Sustainable Development Learning for a sustainable world. Paris, France: Author.
41.
WetherellG. A.BrandtM. J.ReynaC. (2013). Discrimination across the ideological divide: The role of value violations and abstract values in discrimination by liberals and conservatives. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 658–667.
42.
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
