Partisan Bias and Its Discontents
Abstract
Baron and Jost (this issue, p. 292) present three critiques of our meta-analysis demonstrating similar levels of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives: (a) that the studies we examined were biased toward finding symmetrical bias among liberals and conservatives, (b) that the studies we examined do not measure partisan bias but rather rational Bayesian updating, and (c) that social psychology is not biased in favor of liberals but rather toward creating false equivalencies. We respond in turn that (a) the included studies covered a wide variety of issues at the core of contemporary political conflict and fairly compared bias by establishing conditions under which both liberals and conservatives would have similar motivations and opportunities to demonstrate bias; (b) we carefully selected studies that were least vulnerable to Bayesian counterexplanation, and most scientists and laypeople consider these studies demonstrations of bias; and (c) there is reason to be vigilant about liberal bias in social psychology, but this does not preclude concerns about other possible biases, all of which threaten good science. We close with recommendations for future research and urge researchers to move beyond broad generalizations of political differences that are insensitive to time and context.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Abramowitz S. I., Gomes B., Abramowitz C. V. (1975). Publish or politic: Referee bias in manuscript review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 187–200.
Baron J., Jost J. T. (2019). False equivalence: Are liberals and conservatives in the United States equally biased? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 292–303.
Bertrand M., Mullainathan S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review, 94, 991–1013.
Brandt M. J., Reyna C., Chambers J. R., Crawford J. T., Wetherell G. (2014). The ideological-conflict hypothesis: Intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 27–34.
Brandt M. J., Wetherell G., Reyna C. (2014). Liberals and conservatives can show similarities in negativity bias. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 37, 307–308.
Brown J. D., Kobayashi C. (2002). Self-enhancement in Japan and America. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 145–168.
Bullock J. G. (2009). Partisan bias and the Bayesian ideal in the study of public opinion. The Journal of Politics, 71, 1109–1124.
Ceci S. J., Peters D., Plotkin J. (1985). Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. American Psychologist, 40, 994–1002.
Chaiken S., Giner-Sorolla R., Chen S. (1996). Beyond accuracy: Defense and impression motives in heuristic and systematic information processing. In Gollwitzer P. M., Bargh J. A. (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 553–578). New York, NY: Guilford.
Claassen R. L., Ensley M. J. (2016). Motivated reasoning and yard-sign-stealing partisans: Mine is a likable rogue, yours is a degenerate criminal. Political Behavior, 38, 317–335.
Cohen G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 808–822.
Collins T. P., Crawford J. T., Brandt M. J. (2017). No evidence for ideological asymmetry in dissonance avoidance. Social Psychology, 48, 123–134.
Conway L. G., Gornick L. J., Houck S. C., Anderson C., Stockert J., Sessoms D., McCue K. (2016). Are conservatives really more simple-minded than liberals? The domain specificity of complex thinking. Political Psychology, 37, 777–798.
Conway L. G. III, Houck S. C., Gornick L. J., Repke M. R. (2017). Finding the Loch Ness monster: Left-wing authoritarianism in the United States. Political Psychology, 39, 1049–1067.
Crawford J. T. (2012). The ideologically objectionable premise model: Predicting biased political judgments on the left and right. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 138–151.
Darley J. M., Gross P. H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 20–33.
Ditto P. H. (2009). Passion, reason, and necessity: A quantity of processing view of motivated reasoning. In Bayne T., Fernandez J. (Eds.), Delusion, self-deception, and affective influences on belief formation (pp. 23–53). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Ditto P. H., Liu B., Clark C. J., Wojcik S. P., Chen E. E., Grady R. H., . . . Zinger J. F. (2019). At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 273–291.
Ditto P. H., Lopez D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 568–584.
Ditto P. H., Munro G. D., Apanovich A. M., Scepansky J. A., Lockhart L. K. (2003). Spontaneous skepticism: The interplay of motivation and expectation in responses to favorable and unfavorable medical diagnoses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1120–1132.
Ditto P. H., Scepansky J. A., Munro G. D., Apanovitch A. M., Lockhart L. K. (1998). Motivated sensitivity to preference-inconsistent information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 53–69.
Duarte J. L., Crawford J. T., Stern C., Haidt J., Jussim L., Tetlock P. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 38, Article e130.
Duncan B. L. (1976). Differential social perception and attribution of intergroup violence: Testing the lower limits of stereotyping of Blacks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 590–598.
Eitan O., Viganola D., Inbar Y., Dreber A., Johannesson M., Pfeiffer T., . . . Uhlmann E. L. (2018). Is research in social psychology politically biased? Systematic empirical tests and a forecasting survey to address the controversy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 188–199.
Erdelyi M. H. (1974). A new look at the new look: Perceptual defense and vigilance. Psychological Review, 81, 1–25.
Federico C. M., Malka A. (2018). The contingent, contextual nature of the relationship between needs for security and certainty and political preferences: Evidence and implications. Advances in Political Psychology, 39, 3–48.
Feldman S., Johnston C. (2014). Understanding the determinants of political ideology: Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology, 35, 337–358.
Frenda S. J., Knowles E. D., Saletan W., Loftus E. F. (2013). False memories of fabricated political events. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 280–286.
Frimer J. A., Skitka L. J., Motyl M. (2017). Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another’s opinions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 1–12.
Garrett R. K., Stroud N. J. (2014). Partisan paths to exposure diversity: Differences in pro- and counterattitudinal news consumption. Journal of Communication, 64, 680–701.
Gerber A., Green D. (1999). Misperceptions about perceptual bias. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 189–210.
Giner-Sorolla R., Chaiken S. (1997). Selective use of heuristic and systematic processing under defense motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 84–97.
Goldberg P. (1968). Are women prejudiced against women? Transaction, 5, 316–322.
Green A. R., Carney D. R., Pallin D. J., Ngo L. H., Raymond K. L., Iezzoni L. I., Banaji M. R. (2007). Implicit bias among physicians and its prediction of thrombolysis decisions for black and white patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 1231–1238.
Inbar Y., Lammers J. (2012). Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 496–503.
Janoff-Bulman R., Sheikh S., Baldacci K. G. (2008). Mapping moral motives: Approach, avoidance, and political orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1091–1099.
Johnston C. D., Wronski J. (2015). Personality dispositions and political preferences across hard and easy issues. Political Psychology, 36, 35–53.
Jones E. E., Gerard H. (1967). Foundations of social psychology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Jost J. T. (2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology, 38, 167–208.
Jost J. T., Glaser J., Kruglanski A. W., Sulloway F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.
Kahan D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407–424.
Kahan D. M. (2016). The politically motivated reasoning paradigm, part 1: What politically motivated reasoning is and how to measure it. In Scott R. A., Kosslyn S. M., Buchmann M. C. (Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Kahan D. M., Hoffman D. A., Braman D., Evans D. (2012). They saw a protest: Cognitive illiberalism and the speech-conduct distinction. Stanford Law Review, 64, 851–906. Retrieved from http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2012/05/Kahan-64-Stan-L-Rev-851.pdf
Kahan D. M., Peters E., Dawson E. C., Slovic P. (2017). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy, 1, 54–86.
Kahneman D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697–720.
Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.
King E. B., Avery D. R., Hebl M. R., Cortina J. M. (2018). Systematic subjectivity: How subtle biases infect the scholarship review process. Journal of Management, 44, 843–853.
Kopko K. C., McKinnon S., Budziak J., Devine C. J., Nawara S. P. (2011). In the eye of the beholder? Motivated reasoning in disputed elections. Political Behavior, 33, 271–290.
Kunda Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.
Liu B. S., Ditto P. H. (2013). What dilemma? Moral evaluation shapes factual belief. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 4, 316–323.
Lord C. G., Ross L., Lepper M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.
MacCoun R. J., Paletz S. (2009). Citizens’ perceptions of ideological bias in research on public policy controversies. Political Psychology, 30, 43–65.
Malka A., Lelkes Y., Holzer N. (2017). Rethinking the rigidity of the right model: Three suboptimal methodological practices and their implications. In Crawford J. T., Jussim L. (Eds.), Frontiers of social psychology: Politics of social psychology (pp. 116–135). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Malka A., Soto C. J., Inzlicht M., Lelkes Y. (2014). Do needs for security and certainty predict cultural and economic conservatism? A cross-national analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 1031–1051.
Mercier H., Sperber D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 34, 57–111.
Miller D. T., Ross M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213–225.
Munro G. D., Ditto P. H. (1997). Biased assimilation, attitude polarization, and affect in reactions to stereotype-relevant scientific information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 636–653.
Nisbet E. C., Cooper K. E., Garrett R. K. (2015). The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis) trust science. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658, 36–66.
Nisbett R. E., Ross L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Nyhan B., Reifler J., Ubel P. A. (2013). The hazards of correcting myths about health care reform. Medical Care, 51, 127–132.
Pennycook G., Rand D. G. (2019). Cognitive reflection and the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45, 224–239.
Pronin E. (2007). Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 37–43.
Sedikides C., Gaertner L., Vevea J. L. (2005). Pancultural self-enhancement reloaded: A meta-analytic reply to Heine (2005). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 539–551.
Simmons J. P., Nelson L. D., Simonsohn U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.
Spranca M., Minsk E., Baron J. (1991). Omission and commission in judgment and choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 76–105.
Stanovich K. E., West R. F. (1997). Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 342–357.
Stanovich K. E., West R. F. (1998). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 161–188.
Stanovich K. E., West R. F., Toplak M. E. (2013). Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 259–264.
Taber C. S., Cann D., Kucsova S. (2009). The motivated processing of political arguments. Political Behavior, 31, 137–155.
Taber C. S., Lodge M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755–769.
Tajfel H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96–13.
Tetlock P. E. (1994). Political psychology or politicized psychology: Is the road to hell paved with good moral intentions? Political Psychology, 15, 509–529.
Tetlock P. E., Armor D., Peterson R. S. (1994). The slavery debate in Antebellum America: Cognitive style, value conflict, and the limits of compromise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 115–126.
Tetlock P. E., Levi A. (1982). Attribution bias: On the inconclusiveness of the cognition-motivation debate. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 68–88.
Tetlock P. E., Tyler A. (1996). Churchill’s cognitive and rhetorical style: The debates over Nazi intentions and self-government for India. Political Psychology, 17, 149–170.
Thaler R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 183–206.
Thorisdottir H., Jost J. T., Liviatan I., Shrout P. E. (2007). Psychological needs and values underlying left-right political orientation: Cross-national evidence from Eastern and Western Europe. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 175–203.
Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.
Uhlmann E. L., Pizarro D. A., Tannenbaum D., Ditto P. H. (2009). The motivated use of moral principles. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 476–491.
Vallone R. P., Ross L., Lepper M. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577–585.
Van Hiel A., Onraet E., De Pauw S. (2010). The relationship between social-cultural attitudes and behavioral measures of cognitive style: A meta-analytic integration of studies. Journal of Personality, 78, 1765–1800.
von Hippel W., Buss D. M. (2017). Do ideologically driven scientific agendas impede the understanding and acceptance of evolutionary principles in social psychology? In Crawford J. T., Jussim L. (Eds.), The politics of social psychology (pp. 7–25). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Washburn A. N., Skitka L. J. (2018). Science denial across the political divide: Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to deny attitude-inconsistent science. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 9, 972–980.
Winegard B. M., Clark C. J., Hasty C. R., Baumeister R. F. (2018). Equalitarianism: A source of liberal bias. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Wojcik S. P., Hovasapian A., Graham J., Motyl M., Ditto P. H. (2015). Conservatives report, but liberals display, greater happiness. Science, 347, 1243–1246.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
- ditto_supplemental_material.pdf
- 241.70 KB
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: March 6, 2019
Issue published: March 2019
Keywords
PubMed: 30836902
Authors
Author Contributions
P. H. Ditto and C. J. Clark contributed equally to this article. All the authors approved the final manuscript for submission.
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Perspectives on Psychological Science.
View All Journal MetricsArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 2887
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 31 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 28
- Critical Thinking Across Disciplines, Vol. 1
- Origin of (A)symmetry: The Evolution of Out-Party Distrust in the United States
- Partisan Bias in Political Judgment
- The Fitness-Validation Model of Propagandist Persuasion and the 5Ds of Propaganda
- Allegations of Democratic Election Fraud and Support for Political Violence Among Republicans
- Blurred Authorities: How Exposure to Conflicting Accounts Increases Strong Democrats’ Openness to Partisan Conspiracy Narratives
- The relationship between political ideology and judgements of bias in distributional outcomes
- Actual and Perceived Partisan Bias in Judgments of Political Misinformation as Lies
- The taboo remains: Responding to a critical commentary
- Motivated Cognition in Cooperation
- View More
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
I am signed in as:
View my profileSign out
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
loading institutional access options
APS members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.
APS members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
