The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Partisan Bias and the Bayesian Ideal in the Study of Public Opinion
Abstract
Bayes’ Theorem is increasingly used as a benchmark against which to judge the quality of citizens’ thinking, but some of its implications are not well understood. A common claim is that Bayesians must agree more as they learn and that the failure of partisans to do the same is evidence of bias in their responses to new information. Formal inspection of Bayesian learning models shows that this is a misunderstanding. Learning need not create agreement among Bayesians. Disagreement among partisans is never clear evidence of bias. And although most partisans are not Bayesians, their reactions to new information are surprisingly consistent with the ideal of Bayesian rationality.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problems
Kalman, R. E. (1960) · Journal of Basic Engineering · doi:10.1115/1.3662552 · Cited by 31,751
Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions
Bartels, L. M. (2002) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1021226224601 · Cited by 1,468
The Dynamics of Informational Cascades: The Monday Demonstrations in Leipzig, East Germany, 1989–91
Lohmann, S. (1994) · World Politics · doi:10.2307/2950679 · Cited by 1,035
Cited by
Tucker, J. A., Guess, A., Barbera, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., Stukal, D., & Nyhan, B. (2018) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3144139 · Cited by 1,222
The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation
Druckman, J. N., & McGrath, M. C. (2019) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0360-1 · Cited by 733
Weeks, B. E. (2015) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12164 · Cited by 531
Does Counter-Attitudinal Information Cause Backlash? Results from Three Large Survey Experiments
Guess, A., & Coppock, A. (2020) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123418000327 · Cited by 372
Overconfidence in Political Behavior
Ortoleva, P., & Snowberg, E. (2015) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20130921 · Cited by 355
Metadata
- Authors
- Bullock, J. G.
- Venue
- The Journal of Politics
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2009-07
- Volume
- 71
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1109-1124
- ISSN
- 0022-3816 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2508
- OpenAlex
- W2011572126
- Cited by
- 239
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 42.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Partisan Bias and the Bayesian Ideal in the Study of Public Opinion. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0022381609090914
- The paper
- Bullock, J. G. (2009). Partisan Bias and the Bayesian Ideal in the Study of Public Opinion. The Journal of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381609090914
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
