Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies.

Title: Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies Authors: Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. Year: 2012

Summary: In "Boomerang Effects in Science Communication: How Motivated Reasoning and Identity Cues Amplify Opinion Polarization About Climate Mitigation Policies," Hart and Nisbet (2012) investigate the factors that contribute to the polarization of public opinion on climate change policies. The authors specifically explore the role of motivated reasoning and identity cues in shaping individuals' responses to information about climate change mitigation policies.

Motivated reasoning refers to the process by which individuals interpret and evaluate information in a way that supports their pre-existing beliefs and attitudes. Identity cues are signals that align a particular issue with a specific social or political group. The authors argue that these factors can create a "boomerang effect" in science communication, where individuals exposed to information that contradicts their pre-existing beliefs may become even more entrenched in their views, leading to further polarization.

To test their hypotheses, Hart and Nisbet conducted an experiment using a diverse sample of U.S. adults. Participants were exposed to news articles about climate change policies, with varying identity cues and frames. The results showed that when individuals encountered information that conflicted with their existing beliefs, they tended to engage in motivated reasoning and dismiss the information. This effect was amplified when identity cues were present, leading to even greater polarization in opinions about climate mitigation policies.

In conclusion, Hart and Nisbet's (2012) article provides valuable insights into the factors that contribute to the polarization of public opinion on climate change policies. The findings suggest that motivated reasoning and identity cues can exacerbate opinion polarization, highlighting the need for effective science communication strategies that minimize these effects and promote constructive dialogue on climate change.