CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4,583Social and Intergroup PsychologyDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence

Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence

Lord, Charles G., Ross, Lee, Lepper, Mark R.·1979·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • All of these mechanisms, sometimes grouped under 'myside bias', 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 change.

    “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 Lord et al. (1979) study, when the study was consistent with participants' prior beliefs, they thought it was better conducted and more convincing regardless of design; reading mixed evidence led them to become more confident in their beliefs about the deterrent efficacy of the death penalty.

    “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 Cohen, Aronson, and Steele (2000) study, in the no-affirmation control condition, participants found flaws in the methodology of studies that contradicted their political beliefs, suspected bias on the part of the authors, and persisted in their attitudes about capital punishment.

    “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)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
ORCID
Lord, Charles G.
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1979-11
Volume
37
Issue
11
Pages
2098-2109
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
DOI
10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
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