How Motivated Reasoning and Temporal Frames May Polarize Opinions About Wildlife Disease Risk

摘要

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.