Presenting scientific consensus reduces rather than triggers partisan backfire

Evidence

So, what happened? Did conservatives and liberals polarize further once exposed to the (dis)confirming evidence, like in the Stanford study? No. Conservatives, including highly educated conservatives – as well as liberals and moderates – all updated their beliefs about the scientific consensus on climate change towards the evidence. No backfire. In fact, highlighting the strong scientific consensus led to more political agreement on the issue rather than polarization. Importantly, research in the context of the 2021 US Capitol Hill attack has found similar results: after exposure to a fact-check about false claims of ‘voter fraud’, the most analytical and reflective Republicans expressed greater confidence in the legitimacy of the election results. — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 142

Categorization

• QUESTION: This directly challenges the widely cited backfire-effect finding from Nyhan and Reifler’s Stanford study — worth chasing what explains the divergence (framing? consensus messaging? replication failures?).
• XREF: connects to: Presenting disconfirming evidence to partisans strengthens rather than weakens their views — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects…, 132; Communicating scientific consensus reduces climate polarization across the spectrum — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects…, 142; Challenging consensus triggers dismissal of the arguer rather than the argument — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk: The Collected and Unpublished…, 2389 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Communicating scientific consensus reduces climate polarization across the spectrum #corroborates (0.95) — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 142
• Perceived scientific consensus is a central gateway to related climate beliefs. #expands (0.80) — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 665
• Greater scientific literacy widens political polarization on contested science rather than narrowing it #contradicts (0.80) — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 133
• Exposing people to opposing viewpoints increases rather than reduces polarization #contradicts (0.75) — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 453
• A scientific consensus can still rest on a misleading historical inheritance #qualifies (0.72)
• Challenging consensus triggers dismissal of the arguer rather than the argument #responds-to (0.70) — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk, 2389