- People update their policy views "in parallel", but if the information is "counterattitudinal," people *dislike* the message and the messenger

- Group cues (information about which groups in society support which policies) have effects on attitudes that depend on group attachments

Key idea #2:

Here is a typology of political communication treatments and outcomes:

- two kinds of treatments: persuasive information and group cues

- two kinds of outcomes: policy attitudes and affective evaluations

We can look at the PiP pattern in another way by correlating the CATEs, split by many different covariates.

These are the figures that convince me of key idea #1

The evidence for the claim comes from a meta-analysis 23 persuasion experiments. Some are original experiments, some are replication studies, and some are reanalyses.

Here's all the evidence in the book:

Here's a good example from a reanalysis and MTurk replication of Chong and Druckman (2010)

treatment: persuasive info for or against the patriot act
outcome: support for the patriot act
covariate: partisanship

The groups update their support for the Patriot Act in parallel.

Key Idea #1: The Persuasion in Parallel pattern is common

Here's a schematic instance of the PiP pattern.

Suppose on average, red triangles oppose a policy, blue circles support it.

When exposed to persuasive information, both groups update their views "in parallel"

The cover for Persuasion in Parallel is here!

If all goes according to plan, it will be physical in November!

[update: it became physical just this month!]

Update: Silas was born last week and we are overjoyed.

When I reflect on how hard IVF was for us and how it eventually worked, the support of my community after this tweet keeps coming back.

Thank you -- one year ago, we really needed that shot in the arm.