At Least Bias Is Bipartisan: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Partisan Bias in Liberals and Conservatives
Citations Over TimeTop 1% of 2018 papers
Abstract
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.
Related Papers
- → P value–driven methods were underpowered to detect publication bias: analysis of Cochrane review meta-analyses(2019)122 cited
- → Epstein-Barr virus infection and oral squamous cell carcinoma risk: A meta-analysis(2017)83 cited
- → Circulating visfatin levels and cancers risk: A systematic review and meta‐analysis(2018)45 cited
- → Increased carotid intima–media thickness (CIMT) levels in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM): A meta-analysis(2015)23 cited
- → The effect of school intervention programs on the body mass index of adolescents: a systematic review with meta-analysis(2020)6 cited