首页> 外文期刊>Perspectives on Psychological Science >At Least Bias Is Bipartisan: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Partisan Bias in Liberals and Conservatives
【24h】

At Least Bias Is Bipartisan: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Partisan Bias in Liberals and Conservatives

机译:至少偏见是BIPARTISAN:自由主义和保守派中偏见的偏见偏见的荟萃分析比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Both liberals and conservatives accuse their political opponents of partisan bias, but is there empirical evidence that one side of the political aisle is indeed more biased than the other? To address this question, we meta-analyzed the results of 51 experimental studies, involving over 18,000 participants, that examined one form of partisan bias-the tendency to evaluate otherwise identical information more favorably when it supports one's political beliefs or allegiances than when it challenges those beliefs or allegiances. Two hypotheses based on previous literature were tested: an asymmetry hypothesis (predicting greater partisan bias in conservatives than in liberals) and a symmetry hypothesis (predicting equal levels of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives). Mean overall partisan bias was robust (r = .245), and there was strong support for the symmetry hypothesis: Liberals (r = .235) and conservatives (r = .255) showed no difference in mean levels of bias across studies. Moderator analyses reveal this pattern to be consistent across a number of different methodological variations and political topics. Implications of the current findings for the ongoing ideological symmetry debate and the role of partisan bias in scientific discourse and political conflict are discussed.
机译:自由主义者和保守党都指责他们的政治对手偏见的偏见,但有的经验证据表明政治过道的一方确实比其他人更偏有?为了解决这个问题,我们分析了51个实验研究的结果,涉及超过18,000名参与者,该研究涉及超过18,000名参与者,该参与者审查了一种形式的党派偏见 - 当它支持一个人的政治信仰或忠诚时,更有利地评估其相同的信息的倾向那些信仰或忠诚。测试了基于先前文献的两个假设:不对称假设(预测保守者的大部分偏见,而不是在自由主义中)和对称假设(预测自由主义和保守派的党派偏见等平等水平)。平均总体党派偏见是强大的(r = .245),对对称假设有很强的支持:自由主义者(r = .235)和保守(r = .255)在研究中偏差的平均水平没有差异。主持人分析揭示了这种模式,符合许多不同的方法论变化和政治主题。目前调查结果对正在进行的思想对称辩论和党派偏见在科学话语和政治冲突中的作用。

著录项

  • 来源
  • 作者单位

    Univ Calif Irvine Dept Psychol &

    Social Behav 4201 Social &

    Behav Sci Gateway Irvine CA 92697 USA;

    Kalamazoo Coll Dept Psychol Kalamazoo MI 49007 USA;

    Florida State Univ Dept Psychol Tallahassee FL 32306 USA;

    Univ Calif Irvine Dept Psychol &

    Social Behav 4201 Social &

    Behav Sci Gateway Irvine CA 92697 USA;

    Univ Calif Irvine Dept Psychol &

    Social Behav 4201 Social &

    Behav Sci Gateway Irvine CA 92697 USA;

    Univ Calif Irvine Dept Psychol &

    Social Behav 4201 Social &

    Behav Sci Gateway Irvine CA 92697 USA;

    Univ Calif Irvine Dept Psychol &

    Social Behav 4201 Social &

    Behav Sci Gateway Irvine CA 92697 USA;

    Univ Calif Irvine Dept Psychol &

    Social Behav 4201 Social &

    Behav Sci Gateway Irvine CA 92697 USA;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 心理学;
  • 关键词

    bias; motivated reasoning; ideology; politics; meta-analysis;

    机译:偏见;动机推理;意识形态;政治;荟萃分析;
  • 入库时间 2022-08-20 06:07:03

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号