Acquired polarized beliefs about the authority in one domain can propagate to and polarize initially shared beliefs in new domains. A) Simulation procedures in the original and new topic area for each pair of subgroups. In the original domain, two subgroups start with differing beliefs about a perspective on a topic area (i.e. proponent and opponent), but shared beliefs about the authority's accuracy motive and bias. After observing five debunking actions by an authority, the two subgroups update their perspective beliefs as well as their beliefs about the authority, referred to as acquired beliefs about the authority's accuracy and bias. The same authority (i.e. the same person or organization) then chooses to enter and debunk claims about a related perspective in a new topic area, therefore the acquired beliefs about the authority transfer to the new domain. We assume the two subgroups initially have shared beliefs about the new topic, but they are quite uncertain in their perspective beliefs (mean = 0.5, std = 0.25). We simulate the evolution of beliefs and quantify the potential acquired polarization in perspective beliefs in the new topic area, as a result of their acquired polarized beliefs about the authority from the original domain. B) The scatter plot shows the results of 243 pairs of simulations corresponding to the 243 pairs of simulations with various prior belief settings in the original domain. Each data point represents one pair of simulations; therefore, there are 243 points shown in the plot (see Fig. S6 for labels). Belief polarization is defined as the absolute value of the difference between the two subgroups' beliefs (i.e. mean of belief distributions). The x-and y-axis represent the acquired polarization in beliefs about authority's accuracy and bias, respectively, before observing the authority's decisions in the new topic domain; darker points indicate larger polarization in beliefs about the new topic after five debunking actions by the same authority. The side panels show the evolution of beliefs in seven example pairs of simulations.

Contexts in source publication

Context 1

... from this perspective is true). We ran the simulations for a perspective on a new topic that is related to the previous one, such that beliefs about the authority's bias would be generalizable across the two topics. We studied the resulting polarization in beliefs, as the authority debunks claims about a perspective in this new topic five times (Fig. ...

Context 2

... about the authority's motives (accuracy and bias) was a major determinant of how much beliefs about the new topic would polarize. If the two groups had acquired a larger difference in their beliefs about the authority's accuracy, and/or their beliefs about the authority's bias, they ended up more polarized in their beliefs about the new topic (Fig. 6B). Differences in beliefs about accuracy or bias alone can lead to divergence in beliefs about the new topic (e.g. simulations 62 and ...

Context 3

... authorities might simply be low, as it is across many aspects of politics (e.g. (73, 74)). Second, nonpartisan or newly formed authorities may not have established reputations (e.g. (75, 76)). Third, well-known authorities may enter Each data point represents one pair of simulations; therefore, there are 243 points shown in the plot (see Fig. S6 for labels). Belief polarization is defined as the absolute value of the difference between the two subgroups' beliefs (i.e. mean of belief distributions). The x-and y-axis represent the acquired polarization in beliefs about authority's accuracy and bias, respectively, before observing the authority's decisions in the new topic domain; darker ...