1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Psychology
  4. Volume 76, 2025
  5. Article

Annual Review of Psychology

Volume 76, 2025

Partisan Bias in Political Judgment

Abstract

This article reviews empirical data demonstrating robust ingroup favoritism in political judgment. Partisans display systematic tendencies to seek out, believe, and remember information that supports their political beliefs and affinities. However, the psychological drivers of partisan favoritism have been vigorously debated, as has its consistency with rational inference. We characterize decades-long debates over whether such tendencies violate normative standards of rationality, focusing on the phenomenon of motivated reasoning. In light of evidence that both motivational and cognitive factors contribute to partisan bias, we advocate for a descriptive approach to partisan bias research. Rather than adjudicating the (ir)rationality of partisan favoritism, future research should prioritize the identification and measurement of its predictors and clarify the cognitive mechanisms underlying motivated political reasoning. Ultimately, we argue that political judgment is best evaluated by a standard of ecological rationality based on its practical implications for individual well-being and functional democratic governance.

Keyword(s): ingroup favoritism, motivated reasoning, myside bias, partisan bias, rationality
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-030424-122723
2025-01-17
2025-04-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/psych/76/1/annurev-psych-030424-122723.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-030424-122723&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Anderson CA, Lepper MR, Ross L. 1980.. Perseverance of social theories: the role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. . J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 39:(6):1037–49
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  2. Anglin SM. 2019.. Do beliefs yield to evidence? Examining belief perseverance versus change in response to congruent empirical findings. . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 82::176–99
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arkes HR, Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R. 2016.. How bad is incoherence?. Decision 3:(1):20–39
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bakshy E, Messing S, Adamic LA. 2015.. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. . Science 348:(6239):1130–32
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. Baron J. 1995.. Myside bias in thinking about abortion. . Think. Reason. 1:(3):221–35
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  6. Baron J, Jost JT. 2019.. False equivalence: Are liberals and conservatives in the United States equally biased?. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 14:(2):292–303 An empirical and conceptual critique of Ditto et al.’s (2019b) meta-analysis of partisan bias.
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bartels LM. 2002.. Beyond the running tally: partisan bias in political perceptions. . Political Behav. 24:(2):117–50
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  8. Batailler C, Brannon SM, Teas PE, Gawronski B. 2022.. A signal detection approach to understanding the identification of fake news. . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17:(1):78–98
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bem DJ. 1967.. Self-perception: an alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. . Psychol. Rev. 74:(3):183–200
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bem DJ. 1972.. Self-perception theory. . Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 6::1–62
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bruine de Bruin W, Saw H-W, Goldman DP. 2020.. Political polarization in US residents’ COVID-19 risk perceptions, policy preferences, and protective behaviors. . J. Risk Uncertain. 61:(2):177–94
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bruner JS, Goodman CC. 1947.. Value and need as organizing factors in perception. . J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 42:(1):33–44
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bullock JG. 2009.. Partisan bias and the Bayesian ideal in the study of public opinion. . J. Politics 71:(3):1109–24
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  14. Calvillo DP, Harris JD, Hawkins WC. 2023.. Partisan bias in false memories for misinformation about the 2021 U.S. Capitol riot. . Memory 31:(1):137–46
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  15. Celniker JB, Ditto PH. 2024.. Of preferences and priors: motivated reasoning in partisans’ evaluations of scientific evidence. . J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Chew SH, Huang W, Zhao X. 2020.. Motivated false memory. . J. Political Econ. 128:(10):3913–39
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  17. Clark CJ, Liu BS, Winegard BM, Ditto PH. 2019.. Tribalism is human nature. . Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 28:(6):587–92
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cohen GL. 2003.. Party over policy: the dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. . J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 85:(5):808–22
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  19. Cohen GL, Sherman DK, Bastardi A, Hsu L, McGoey M, Ross L. 2007.. Bridging the partisan divide: Self-affirmation reduces ideological closed-mindedness and inflexibility in negotiation. . J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 93:(3):415–30
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  20. Darley JM, Fazio RH. 1980.. Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social interaction sequence. . Am. Psychol. 35:(10):867–81
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dejean S, Lumeau M, Peltier S. 2022.. Partisan selective exposure in news consumption. . Inform. Econ. Policy 60::100992
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  22. Derreumaux Y, Bergh R, Hughes BL. 2022.. Partisan-motivated sampling: re-examining politically motivated reasoning across the information processing stream. . J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 123:(2):316–36
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  23. Ditto PH. 2009.. Passion, reason, and necessity: a quantity-of-processing view of motivated reasoning. . In Delusion and Self-Deception: Affective and Motivational Influences on Belief Formation, ed. J Fernández, T Bayne , pp. 23–53. Hove, UK:: Psychol. Press A historical review of motivated reasoning research and theoretical and empirical challenges it has faced.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Ditto PH, Clark CJ, Liu BS, Wojcik SP, Chen EE, et al. 2019a.. Partisan bias and its discontents. . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 14:(2):304–16 A rejoinder to Baron & Jost (2019), discussing the Bayesian critiques of partisan bias research.
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  25. Ditto PH, Croyle RT. 1995.. Understanding the impact of risk factor test results: insights from a basic research program. . In Psychosocial Effects of Screening for Disease Prevention and Detection, ed. RT Croyle , pp. 144–81. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Ditto PH, Liu BS, Clark CJ, Wojcik SP, Chen EE, et al. 2019b.. At least bias is bipartisan: a meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 14:(2):273–91 A meta-analysis of partisan bias studies, finding modest but robust bias across the political spectrum.
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  27. Ditto PH, Lopez DF. 1992.. Motivated skepticism: use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. . J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 63:(4):568–84
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  28. Ditto PH, Munro GD, Apanovitch AM, Scepansky JA, Lockhart LK. 2003.. Spontaneous skepticism: the interplay of motivation and expectation in responses to favorable and unfavorable medical diagnoses. . Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29:(9):1120–32
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  29. Ditto PH, Scepansky JA, Munro GD, Apanovitch AM, Lockhart LK. 1998.. Motivated sensitivity to preference-inconsistent information. . J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 75:(1):53–69
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  30. Druckman JN, McGrath MC. 2019.. The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. . Nat. Climate Change 9:(2):111–19 A review clarifying the challenges of identifying motivated reasoning in studies about climate change beliefs.
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  31. Dylko IB. 2016.. How technology encourages political selective exposure. . Commun. Theory 26:(4):389–409
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  32. Eagly AH, Chen S, Chaiken S, Shaw-Barnes K. 1999.. The impact of attitudes on memory: an affair to remember. . Psychol. Bull. 125:(1):64–89
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  33. Eagly AH, Kulesa P, Chen S, Chaiken S. 2001.. Do attitudes affect memory? Tests of the congeniality hypothesis. . Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 10:(1):5–9
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  34. Earle M, Hodson G. 2022.. News media impact on sociopolitical attitudes. . PLOS ONE 17:(3):e0264031
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  35. Epley N, Gilovich T. 2006.. The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: why the adjustments are insufficient. . Psychol. Sci. 17:(4):311–18
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  36. Erdelyi MH. 1974.. A new look at the new look: perceptual defense and vigilance. . Psychol. Rev. 81:(1):1–25
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  37. Festinger L. 1957.. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA:: Stanford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Finkel EJ, Bail CA, Cikara M, Ditto PH, Iyengar S, et al. 2020.. Political sectarianism in America. . Science 370:(6516):533–36
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  39. Freedman JL, Sears DO. 1965.. Warning, distraction, and resistance to influence. . J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1:(3):262–66
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. Frenda SJ, Knowles ED, Saletan W, Loftus EF. 2013.. False memories of fabricated political events. . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49:(2):280–86
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  41. Frey D. 1986.. Recent research on selective exposure to information. . Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 19::41–80
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  42. Frimer JA, Skitka LJ, Motyl M. 2017.. Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another's opinions. . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 72::1–12
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  43. Gampa A, Wojcik SP, Motyl M, Nosek BA, Ditto PH. 2019.. ( Ideo)logical reasoning: Ideology impairs sound reasoning. . Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 10:(8):1075–83
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  44. Garrett RK. 2009a.. Echo chambers online? Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. . J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 14:(2):265–85
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  45. Garrett RK. 2009b.. Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: reframing the selective exposure debate. . J. Commun. 59:(4):676–99
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  46. Garrett RK, Carnahan D, Lynch EK. 2013.. A turn toward avoidance? Selective exposure to online political information, 2004–2008. . Political Behav. 35::113–34
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  47. Gawronski B, Ng NL, Luke DM. 2023.. Truth sensitivity and partisan bias in responses to misinformation. . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 152:(8):2205–36 A set of experiments demonstrating a signal detection approach to partisan bias research.
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  48. Gerber A, Green D. 1999.. Misperceptions about perceptual bias. . Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2::189–210
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  49. Gigerenzer G. 1991.. How to make cognitive illusions disappear: beyond “heuristics and biases. .” Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2:(1):83–115
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  50. Gimpel JG, Hui IS. 2015.. Seeking politically compatible neighbors? The role of neighborhood partisan composition in residential sorting. . Political Geogr. 48::130–42
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  51. Greene CM, de Saint Laurent C, Hegarty K, Murphy G. 2022.. False memories for true and false vaccination information form in line with pre-existing vaccine opinions. . Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 36:(6):1200–8
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  52. Grossman G, Kim S, Rexer JM, Thirumurthy H. 2020.. Political partisanship influences behavioral responses to governors’ recommendations for COVID-19 prevention in the United States. . PNAS 117:(39):24144–53
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  53. Hart W, Albarracín D, Eagly AH, Brechan I, Lindberg MJ, Merrill L. 2009.. Feeling validated versus being correct: a meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. . Psychol. Bull. 135:(4):555–88
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  54. Hastorf AH, Cantril H. 1954.. They saw a game: a case study. . J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 49:(1):129–34
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  55. Heider F. 1958.. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Hillsdale, NJ:: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Helgason BA, Effron DA. 2022.. From critical to hypocritical: Counterfactual thinking increases partisan disagreement about media hypocrisy. . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 101::104308
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  57. Hewstone M, Rubin M, Willis H. 2002.. Intergroup bias. . Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53::575–604
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  58. Iyengar S, Hahn KS. 2009.. Red media, blue media: evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. . J. Commun. 59:(1):19–39
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  59. Iyengar S, Westwood SJ. 2015.. Fear and loathing across party lines: new evidence on group polarization. . Am. J. Political Sci. 59:(3):690–707
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  60. Janis IL, Frick F. 1943.. The relationship between attitudes toward conclusions and errors in judging logical validity of syllogisms. . J. Exp. Psychol. 33:(1):73–77
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  61. Jordan JJ, Sommers R, Bloom P, Rand DG. 2017.. Why do we hate hypocrites? Evidence for a theory of false signaling. . Psychol. Sci. 28:(3):356–68
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. Jost JT. 2006.. The end of the end of ideology. . Am. Psychol. 61:(7):651–70
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  63. Kahan DM. 2016.. The politically motivated reasoning paradigm, part 1: what politically motivated reasoning is and how to measure it. . In Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, . New York:: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0417
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Kahan DM, Peters E, Dawson EC, Slovic P. 2017.. Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. . Behav. Public Policy 1:(1):54–86
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  65. Klayman J. 1995.. Varieties of confirmation bias. . In Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 32, ed. J Busemeyer, R Hastie, DL Medin , pp. 385–418. San Diego, CA:: Academic
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Knobloch-Westerwick S. 2014.. Choice and Preference in Media Use: Advances in Selective Exposure Theory and Research. London:: Taylor & Francis
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Knobloch-Westerwick S, Kleinman SB. 2012.. Preelection selective exposure: confirmation bias versus informational utility. . Commun. Res. 39:(2):170–93
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  68. Knobloch-Westerwick S, Meng J. 2009.. Looking the other way: selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. . Commun. Res. 36:(3):426–48
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  69. Koehler JJ. 1993.. The influence of prior beliefs on scientific judgments of evidence quality. . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 56:(1):28–55
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  70. Kopko KC, Bryner SM, Budziak J, Devine CJ, Nawara SP. 2011.. In the eye of the beholder? Motivated reasoning in disputed elections. . Political Behav. 33:(2):271–90
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  71. Krueger JI, Funder DC. 2004.. Towards a balanced social psychology: causes, consequences, and cures for the problem-seeking approach to social behavior and cognition. . Behav. Brain Sci. 27:(3):313–27
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  72. Kunda Z. 1990.. The case for motivated reasoning. . Psychol. Bull. 108:(3):480–98
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  73. Lees J, Cikara M. 2020.. Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. . Nat. Hum. Behav. 4:(3):279–86
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  74. Levine JM, Murphy G. 1943.. The learning and forgetting of controversial material. . J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 38:(4):507–17
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  75. Lord CG. 1992.. Was cognitive dissonance theory a mistake?. Psychol. Inq. 3:(4):339–42
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  76. Lord CG, Ross L, Lepper MR. 1979.. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. . J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 37:(11):2098–109 A classic experimental demonstration of partisan bias in evaluations of empirical evidence about capital punishment.
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  77. MacCoun RJ, Paletz S. 2009.. Citizens’ perceptions of ideological bias in research on public policy controversies. . Political Psychol. 30:(1):43–65
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  78. Miller DT. 1976.. Ego involvement and attributions for success and failure. . J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 34:(5):901–6
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  79. Miller DT, Ross M. 1975.. Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: fact or fiction?. Psychol. Bull. 82:(2):213–25
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  80. Morgan JJB, Morton JT. 1944.. The distortion of syllogistic reasoning produced by personal convictions. . J. Soc. Psychol. 20:(1):39–59
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  81. Motyl M, Iyer R, Oishi S, Trawalter S, Nosek BA. 2014.. How ideological migration geographically segregates groups. . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 51::1–14
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  82. Munro GD, Ditto PH. 1997.. Biased assimilation, attitude polarization, and affect in reactions to stereotype-relevant scientific information. . Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 23:(6):636–53
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  83. Munro GD, Ditto PH, Lockhart LK, Fagerlin A, Gready M, Peterson E. 2002.. Biased assimilation of sociopolitical arguments: evaluating the 1996 U.S. presidential debate. . Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 24:(1):15–26
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  84. Murphy G, Loftus EF, Grady RH, Levine LJ, Greene CM. 2019.. False memories for fake news during Ireland's abortion referendum. . Psychol. Sci. 30:(10):1449–59
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  85. Murphy G, Murray E, Gough D. 2021.. Attitudes towards feminism predict susceptibility to feminism-related fake news. . Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 35:(5):1182–92
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  86. Nisbett RE, Ross L. 1980.. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Hoboken, NJ:: Prentice-Hall
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Oeberst A, Imhoff R. 2023.. Toward parsimony in bias research: a proposed common framework of belief-consistent information processing for a set of biases. . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 18:(6):1464–87
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  88. Pennycook G, McPhetres J, Zhang Y, Lu JG, Rand DG. 2020.. Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. . Psychol. Sci. 31:(7):770–80
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  89. Pennycook G, Rand DG. 2019.. Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. . Cognition 188::39–50
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  90. Pennycook G, Rand DG. 2021.. The psychology of fake news. . Trends Cogn. Sci. 25:(5):388–402 A review of fake news research focusing on the role of (in)attention in truth discernment.
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  91. Persson E, Andersson D, Koppel L, Västfjäll D, Tinghög G. 2021.. A preregistered replication of motivated numeracy. . Cognition 214::104768
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  92. Postman L, Bruner JS, McGinnies E. 1948.. Personal values as selective factors in perception. . J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 43:(2):142–54
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  93. Pyszczynski T, Greenberg J. 1987.. Toward an integration of cognitive and motivational perspectives on social inference: a biased hypothesis-testing model. . Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 20::297–340
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  94. Rathje S, He JK, Roozenbeek J, Van Bavel JJ, van der Linden S. 2022.. Social media behavior is associated with vaccine hesitancy. . PNAS Nexus 1:(4):pgac207
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  95. Relihan DP, Holman EA, Garfin DR, Ditto PH, Silver RC. 2023.. Politicization of a pathogen: a prospective longitudinal study of COVID-19 responses in a nationally representative U.S. sample. . Political Psychol. 44:(6):1193–213
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  96. Rodriguez CG, Moskowitz JP, Salem RM, Ditto PH. 2017.. Partisan selective exposure: the role of party, ideology and ideological extremity over time. . Transl. Issues Psychol. Sci. 3:(3):254–71
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  97. Sanitioso R, Kunda Z, Fong GT. 1990.. Motivated recruitment of autobiographical memories. . J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 59:(2):229–41
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  98. Schwarz N, Jalbert M, Noah T, Zhang L. 2020.. Metacognitive experiences as information: processing fluency in consumer judgment and decision making. Consum. . Psychol. Rev. 4:(1):4–25
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Sehgal NJ, Yue D, Pope E, Wang RH, Roby DH. 2022.. The association between COVID-19 mortality and the county-level partisan divide in the United States. . Health Aff. 41:(6):853–63
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  100. Shklar JN. 1984.. Ordinary Vices. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Simon D, Read SJ. 2023.. Toward a general framework of biased reasoning: coherence-based reasoning. . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. In press. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231204579
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Simon D, Snow CJ, Read SJ. 2004.. The redux of cognitive consistency theories: evidence judgments by constraint satisfaction. . J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 86:(6):814–37
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  103. Simon HA. 1990.. Invariants of human behavior. . Annu. Rev. Psychol. 41::1–20
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  104. Stagnaro MN, Tappin BM, Rand DG. 2023.. No association between numerical ability and politically motivated reasoning in a large US probability sample. . PNAS 120:(32):e2301491120
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  105. Stanovich KE. 2021.. The Bias That Divides Us: The Science and Politics of Myside Thinking. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Stanovich KE, West RF, Toplak ME. 2013.. Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. . Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 22:(4):259–64
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  107. Stroud NJ. 2010.. Polarization and partisan selective exposure. . J. Commun. 60:(3):556–76
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  108. Taber CS, Lodge M. 2016.. The illusion of choice in democratic politics: the unconscious impact of motivated political reasoning. . Political Psychol. 37:(S1):61–85
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  109. Tajfel H. 1979.. Individuals and groups in social psychology. . Br. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 18:(2):183–90
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  110. Tappin BM, Pennycook G, Rand DG. 2020.. Thinking clearly about causal inferences of politically motivated reasoning: why paradigmatic study designs often undermine causal inference. . Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34::81–87 A review highlighting the inferential limitations of prominent research paradigms used to study partisan bias.
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  111. Tappin BM, Van Der Leer L, McKay RT. 2017.. The heart trumps the head: desirability bias in political belief revision. . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 146:(8):1143–49
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  112. Tetlock PE, Levi A. 1982.. Attribution bias: on the inconclusiveness of the cognition-motivation debate. . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 18:(1):68–88 A classic discussion of observational equivalence between cognitive and motivational explanations for attributional biases.
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  113. Thibodeau R, Aronson E. 1992.. Taking a closer look: reasserting the role of the self-concept in dissonance theory. . Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 18:(5):591–602
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  114. Tversky A, Kahneman D. 1974.. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. . Science 185:(4157):1124–31
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  115. Van Bavel JJ, Pereira A. 2018.. The partisan brain: an identity-based model of political belief. . Trends Cogn. Sci. 22:(3):213–24
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  116. Voelkel JG, Stagnaro M, Chu J, Pink SL, Mernyk JS, et al. 2023.. Megastudy identifying effective interventions to strengthen Americans’ democratic attitudes. . OSF Preprints, March 20. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/y79u5
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Wallace J, Goldsmith-Pinkham P, Schwartz JL. 2023.. Excess death rates for Republican and Democratic registered voters in Florida and Ohio during the COVID-19 pandemic. . JAMA Intern. Med. 183:(9):916–23
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  118. Weber M. 1946 (1917).. Science as a vocation. . In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, ed. HH Gerth, CW Mills , pp. 129–56. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Westfall J, Van Boven L, Chambers JR, Judd CM. 2015.. Perceiving political polarization in the United States: Party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide. . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10:(2):145–58
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  120. Westfall J, Yarkoni T. 2016.. Statistically controlling for confounding constructs is harder than you think. . PLOS ONE 11:(3):e0152719
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  121. Wicks RH, Wicks JL, Morimoto SA, Maxwell A, Schulte SR. 2014.. Correlates of political and civic engagement among youth during the 2012 presidential campaign. . Am. Behav. Sci. 58:(5):622–44
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  122. Ye X. 2023.. Exploring the relationship between political partisanship and COVID-19 vaccination rate. . J. Public Health 45:(1):91–98
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  123. Young DG, Rasheed H, Bleakley A, Langbaum JB. 2022.. The politics of mask-wearing: political preferences, reactance, and conflict aversion during COVID. . Soc. Sci. Med. 298::114836
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-030424-122723
Loading
Partisan Bias in Political Judgment
Annual Review of Psychology 76, 717 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-030424-122723
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-030424-122723
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-030424-122723
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error