The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence
Abstract
People who hold strong opinions on complex social issues are likely to examine relevant empirical evidence in a biased manner. They are apt to accept "confirming" evidence at face value while subjecting "discontinuing " evidence to critical evaluation, and as a result to draw undue support for their initial positions from mixed or random empirical findings. Thus, the result of exposing contending factions in a social dispute to an identical body of relevant empirical evidence may be not a narrowing of disagreement but rather an increase in polarization. To test these assumptions and predictions, subjects supporting and opposing capital punishment were exposed to two purported studies, one seemingly confirming and one seemingly disconfirming their existing beliefs about the deterrent efficacy of the death penalty. As predicted, both proponents and opponents of capital punishment rated those results and procedures that confirmed their own beliefs to be the more convincing and probative ones, and they reported corresponding shifts in their beliefs as the various results and procedures were presented. The net effect of such evaluations
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“All of these mechanisms, which are sometimes grouped under the general rubric of ‘myside bias’111–113, can contribute to issue polarization, insofar as individuals often become more extreme in their opinions after selectively processing the evidence on specific topics such as capital punishment, immigration, healthcare policy or climate change114,115.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [114]
In the citing paper
“When the study was consistent with participants' prior beliefs, they thought it was better conducted and more convincing regardless of the specific design (concurrent versus panel) of the study.Moreover, reading a mixed bag of evidence-one study supporting and one study contradicting their beliefs-led participants to report becoming more confident in the validity of their beliefs about the deterre”
From The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory (2006) · cites this paper as Lord et al. (1979)
In the citing paper
“In the no-aYrmation control condition, our findings mirrored those of Lord et al. (1979).Participants found flaws in the methodology of the studies that contradicted their political beliefs, they suspected bias on the part of the authors of the report, and they persisted in their attitudes about capital punishment.”
From The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory (2006) · cites this paper as Lord et al. (1979)
Citations
Cites
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Kuhn, T. S., & Schlegel, R. (1963) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3050879 · Cited by 35,538
(1954) · Cited by 15,935
Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment.
Cherniak, C., Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. D. (1983) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2184495 · Cited by 4,196
Self-citationThe Intuitive Psychologist And His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process
Ross, L. (1977) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60357-3 · Cited by 4,170
Self-citationOn Being Sane in Insane Places
ROSENHAN, D. L. (1973) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.179.4070.250 · Cited by 2,192
FORMING IMPRESSIONS OF PERSONALITY
Asch, S. E. (1961) · University of California Press eBooks · doi:10.1525/9780520313514-018 · Cited by 2,100
Campbell, D. T. (1969) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0027982 · Cited by 1,886
The Two-Step Flow of Communication: An Up-To-Date Report on an Hypothesis
Katz, E. (1957) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/266687 · Cited by 1,626
Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes.
Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.656 · Cited by 1,374
Merton, R. K. (2016) · The Antioch Review · doi:10.7723/antiochreview.74.3.0504 · Cited by 1,371
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2 · Cited by 8,822
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.
Haidt, J. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814 · Cited by 8,048
Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises
Nickerson, R. S. (1998) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 · Cited by 7,267
Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.1.4 · Cited by 6,682
Metadata
- Authors
- Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- ORCID
- Lord, Charles G.
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 1979-11
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2098-2109
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2028211630
- Cited by
- 4,583
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 134 · 2025: 144 · 2024: 216 · 2023: 206 · 2022: 193 · 2021: 284 · 2020: 317 · 2019: 288 · 2018: 207 · 2017: 185 · 2016: 165 · 2015: 166 · 2014: 185 · 2013: 137 · 2012: 147
- FWCI
- 40.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
- Keywords
- biased assimilation, attitude polarization, confirmation bias, belief updating, evidence evaluation, death penalty, social disputes, belief revision
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
