The last looks to be the closest to what you are talking about. But even then, it's not talking about "balanced evidence" in the way you seem to present. Because some people seem to think that to balance the evidence, it's one piece from here, one piece from there, giving them equal consideration.
But it's not, it's considering the evidence without consideration to the other side. We don't give the idea that the moon is made of green cheese the same weight as the idea that it's a big rock. Because the green cheese idea is just stupid. It does not deserve consideration.
And you also have the caveat that it's self-reporting and/or questionnaire driven. I can take someone who doesn't believe in global warming, show them how greenhouse gases cause warming, get them to verbally agree that that's what happening, get them to even agree that the same could apply to the whole world, but then they'll still not believe in global warming. Because they'll have a reason as to why the example doesn't apply. But if I never ask the final question, never ask if I actually changed their mind, I can present the results as if I've converted them.
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/jseycg/conservativ...
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/hnlstq/republicans...
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/cm0t6c/republicans...
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/f9wl7g/individuals...
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/km0fzc/a_series_of...
The last looks to be the closest to what you are talking about. But even then, it's not talking about "balanced evidence" in the way you seem to present. Because some people seem to think that to balance the evidence, it's one piece from here, one piece from there, giving them equal consideration.
But it's not, it's considering the evidence without consideration to the other side. We don't give the idea that the moon is made of green cheese the same weight as the idea that it's a big rock. Because the green cheese idea is just stupid. It does not deserve consideration.
And you also have the caveat that it's self-reporting and/or questionnaire driven. I can take someone who doesn't believe in global warming, show them how greenhouse gases cause warming, get them to verbally agree that that's what happening, get them to even agree that the same could apply to the whole world, but then they'll still not believe in global warming. Because they'll have a reason as to why the example doesn't apply. But if I never ask the final question, never ask if I actually changed their mind, I can present the results as if I've converted them.