Thank you for reading this long thread! If you're moved to, please consider boosting the first post!

https://mastodon.social/@aecoppock/109705476383142321

An enormous thank you to the scholars who collaborated with me or whose work I replicated or reanalyzed in this book:

Emily Ekins, David Kirby, Andrew Guess, Charles Lord, Lee Ross, Mark Lepper, Denis Chong, Jamie Druckman, Ted Brader, Nicholas Valentino, Elizabeth Suhay, Michael Hiscox, Christopher D. Johnston, Andrew Ballard, Alison Gash, Michael Murakami, Sarah Kreps, Geoffrey Wallace, Diana Mutz, Kris-Stella Trump, and Ariel White.

The book is available these places:

U Chicago Press: tinyurl.com/jnwb69m3
Bookshop: tinyurl.com/5awdtyuz
Amazon: tinyurl.com/274hr6ja

Or if you'd rather not buy it, perhaps you could ask your library to acquire a copy!

You could incorporate Persuasion in Parallel on your syllabus (it's short, at 214 pages!) by:

1. In a pol. psych class: contrast Lord, Ross, and Lepper (1979) with Chp. 2, which gives a critique of LRL
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098

2. In a public opinion class: contrast Zaller 92's model of opinion change with theory in Chp. 3

3. In a Am. Pol. through experiments class, focus on chp. 4 (design)

4. In a "controversies" class, contrast Taber and Lodge (2006) with Chp. 7
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x

Thank you again for reading this far!

Those were the three key ideas:

1. PiP pattern is common
2. A typology of political communication treatments and outcomes
3. Motivated reasoning theory has a problem

But since the PiP pattern is common, either...

1. Accuracy goals dominate when people encounter persuasive information or

2. Motivated reasoning isn't a good model of information processing (or at least, the MR-predicted backlash doesn't seem to occur)