Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs
Abstract
We propose a model of motivated skepticism that helps explain when and why citizens are biased‐information processors. Two experimental studies explore how citizens evaluate arguments about affirmative action and gun control, finding strong evidence of a prior attitude effect such that attitudinally congruent arguments are evaluated as stronger than attitudinally incongruent arguments. When reading pro and con arguments, participants (Ps) counterargue the contrary arguments and uncritically accept supporting arguments, evidence of a disconfirmation bias. We also find a confirmation bias—the seeking out of confirmatory evidence—when Ps are free to self‐select the source of the arguments they read. Both the confirmation and disconfirmation biases lead to attitude polarization—the strengthening of t 2 over t 1 attitudes—especially among those with the strongest priors and highest levels of political sophistication. We conclude with a discussion of the normative implications of these findings for rational behavior in a democracy.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Decades of research on motivated reasoning show that people tend to select and interpret factual information in a way that reinforces their identity and attitudes rather than challenging them.
“Decades of research on motivated reasoning have shown unambiguously that people tend to select and interpret factual information in a way that reinforces their identity and attitudes rather than challenging them (e.g., Taber and Lodge, 2006).”
From Factual belief polarization between Democrats and Republicans: source or epiphenomenon of ideological and affective polarization? (2024) · cites this paper as Taber and Lodge, 2006
The mixed effects of manifest transparency may partly reflect motivated reasoning, in which people interpret government information to confirm prior beliefs.
“In addition, the mixed effects of manifest transparency may be a reflection in part of processes of motivated reasoning (James & Van Ryzin, 2016); that is, people may interpret information about government in ways that simply confirm and thus strengthen their prior beliefs (Taber and Lodge 2006).”
From Latent transparency and trust in government: Unexpected findings from two survey experiments (2020) · cites this paper as Taber and Lodge 2006
Prior work utilizes observational data to examine the relationship between domain-specific knowledge and attitude polarization.
“Despite the causal nature of the arguments described above, prior work utilizes observational data to examine the relationship between domain-specific knowledge and attitude polarization.”
From Factual knowledge can reduce attitude polarization (2025) · cites this paper as [17]
People may process information in a manner consistent with their partisan identities, prior beliefs, and motivations (motivated cognition).
“People may process information in a manner that is consistent with their partisan identities, prior beliefs, and motivations, a process known as motivated cognition (34–37).”
From Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media (2021) · cites this paper as [36]
Uncertainty may create especially fertile ground for confirmation bias and directional motivated reasoning because ambiguity, controversy, doubt, or imprecision may inherently allow for diverse interpretations.
“Uncertainty may create especially fertile ground for confirmation bias and directional motivated reasoning (Nickerson, 1998;Taber and Lodge, 2006) because ambiguity, controversy, doubt, or imprecision may inherently allow for diverse interpretations (Chang, 2012(Chang, , 2015;;Jacques et al., 2008;McCright and Dunlap, 2003;Oreskes and Conway, 2011).”
From A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication (2020) · cites this paper as Taber and Lodge, 2006
The RM account can explain why confirmation bias is particularly strong in groups in which shared ideologies are at stake.
“The account can also explain why confirmation bias is particularly strong in groups in which shared ideologies are at stake (Taber and Lodge 2006;Gerken 2019).”
From What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? (2022) · cites this paper as Taber and Lodge 2006
Cites
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9781503620766 · Cited by 24,241 · see citing works
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022 · see citing works
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Zaller, J. R. (1992) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818691 · Cited by 7,785 · see citing works
Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing”
Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.103.2.263 · Cited by 2,379 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Partisan goals, which motivate them to apply their reasoning powers in defense of a prior, specific conclusion (Kruglanski & Webster, 1996).”
BackgroundPyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (1987) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.102.1.122 · Cited by 825 · see citing works
Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2005) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00426.x · Cited by 588 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.31.2.211 · Cited by 6,767 · see citing works
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612451018 · Cited by 2,920 · see citing works
Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization
Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F., & Volfovsky, A. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1804840115 · Cited by 1,863 · see citing works
Systematic Literature Review on the Spread of Health-related Misinformation on Social Media
Wang, Y., McKee, M., Torbica, A., & Stuckler, D. (2019) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552 · Cited by 1,806 · see citing works
The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction
Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., Kendeou, P., Vraga, E. K., & Amazeen, M. A. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y · Cited by 1,372 · see citing works
Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial
Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S., & Freed, G. L. (2014) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2013-2365 · Cited by 1,300 · see citing works
The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs About Politics
Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2017) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12394 · Cited by 1,183 · see citing works
Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S., & Maibach, E. (2017) · Global Challenges · doi:10.1002/gch2.201600008 · Cited by 1,058 · see citing works
Political communication in a high-choice media environment: a challenge for democracy?
Van Aelst, P., Strömbäck, J., Aalberg, T., Esser, F., de Vreese, C., Matthes, J., Hopmann, D., Salgado, S., Hubé, N., Stępińska, A., et al. (2017) · Annals of the International Communication Association · doi:10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551 · Cited by 974 · see citing works
The Influence of Partisan Motivated Reasoning on Public Opinion
Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0 · Cited by 891 · see citing works
The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes’ Steadfast Factual Adherence
Wood, T., & Porter, E. (2019) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y · Cited by 904 · see citing works
Affective Polarization in Multiparty Systems
Wagner, M. (2021) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102199 · Cited by 593 · see citing works
Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media
Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J. J., & van der Linden, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2024292118 · Cited by 560 · see citing works
OSMUNDSEN, M., BOR, A., VAHLSTRUP, P. B., BECHMANN, A., & PETERSEN, M. B. (2021) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055421000290 · Cited by 614 · see citing works
Weeks, B. E. (2015) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12164 · Cited by 531 · see citing works
Walter, N., & Tukachinsky, R. (2020) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650219854600 · Cited by 522 · see citing works
The Ideological-Conflict Hypothesis: Intolerance Among Both Liberals and Conservatives
Brandt, M. J., Reyna, C., Chambers, J. R., Crawford, J. T., & Wetherell, G. (2014) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721413510932 · Cited by 432 · see citing works
Nisbet, E. C., Cooper, K. E., & Garrett, R. K. (2015) · The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/0002716214555474 · Cited by 437 · see citing works
Segregation by Design: Local Politics and Inequality in American Cities
Trounstine, J. (2018) · doi:10.1017/9781108555722 · Cited by 428 · see citing works
Confirmation bias, ingroup bias, and negativity bias in selective exposure to political information
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Mothes, C., & Polavin, N. (2020) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650217719596 · Cited by 391 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization
Barberá, P. (2020) · Social Media and Democracy · doi:10.1017/9781108890960.004 · Cited by 373 · see citing works
Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations.
Swire-Thompson, B., DeGutis, J., & Lazer, D. (2020) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.06.006 · Cited by 360 · see citing works
Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study
Kahan, D. M. (2012) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2182588 · Cited by 331 · see citing works
Intellectual humility and openness to the opposing view
Porter, T., & Schumann, K. (2018) · Self and Identity · doi:10.1080/15298868.2017.1361861 · Cited by 314 · see citing works
The Effects of Negativity and Motivated Information Processing During a Political Campaign
Meffert, M. F., Chung, S., Joiner, A. J., Waks, L., & Garst, J. (2006) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00003.x · Cited by 305 · see citing works
A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication
Gustafson, A., & Rice, R. E. (2020) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662520942122 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
No Need to Watch: How the Effects of Partisan Media Can Spread via Interpersonal Discussions
Druckman, J. N., Levendusky, M. S., & McLain, A. (2018) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12325 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
The New Personal Influence: How Our Facebook Friends Influence the News We Read
Anspach, N. M. (2017) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2017.1316329 · Cited by 289 · see citing works
How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting
Törnberg, P. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2207159119 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
Metzger, M. J., Hartsell, E. H., & Flanagin, A. J. (2020) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650215613136 · Cited by 272 · see citing works
The US news media, polarization on climate change, and pathways to effective communication
Bolsen, T., & Shapiro, M. A. (2018) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1397039 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
The gateway belief model: a large-scale replication
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2019) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.009 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Does information change attitudes toward immigrants?
Grigorieff, A., Roth, C., & Ubfal, D. (2020) · Demography · doi:10.1007/s13524-020-00882-8 · Cited by 254 · see citing works
The Pathology of Hard Propaganda
Huang, H. (2018) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/696863 · Cited by 233 · see citing works
Threat, authoritarianism, and selective exposure to information
Lavine, H., Lodge, M., & Freitas, K. (2005) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00416.x · Cited by 227 · see citing works
Reconsidering the role of procedures for decision acceptance
Esaiasson, P., Persson, M., Gilljam, M., & Lindholm, T. (2019) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123416000508 · Cited by 223 · see citing works
Boomerangs versus javelins: how polarization constrains communication on climate change
Zhou, J. (2016) · Environmental Politics · doi:10.1080/09644016.2016.1166602 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
Parkhurst, J. (2016) · London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) · doi:10.4324/9781315675008 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
The Politics of Beauty: The Effects of Partisan Bias on Physical Attractiveness
Nicholson, S. P., Coe, C. M., Emory, J., & Song, A. V. (2016) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-016-9339-7 · Cited by 210 · see citing works
The role of evidence in politics: Motivated reasoning and persuasion among politicians.
Baekgaard, M., Christensen, J., Dahlmann, C. M., Mathiasen, A., & Petersen, N. B. G. (2019) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123417000084 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
Making the Truth Stick & the Myths Fade: Lessons from Cognitive Psychology
Schwarz, N., Newman, E., & Leach, W. (2016) · Behavioral Science & Policy · doi:10.1353/bsp.2016.0009 · Cited by 203 · see citing works
Interpreting performance information: Motivated reasoning or unbiased comprehension.
Baekgaard, M., & Serritzlew, S. (2016) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.12406 · Cited by 188 · see citing works
Confirmation bias in the utilization of others’ opinion strength
Kappes, A., Harvey, A. H., Lohrenz, T., Montague, P. R., & Sharot, T. (2020) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-019-0549-2 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Learning Together Slowly: Bayesian Learning about Political Facts
Hill, S. J. (2017) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/692739 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Vraga, E. K., Kim, S. C., & Cook, J. (2019) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1080/08838151.2019.1653102 · Cited by 162 · see citing works
What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias?
Peters, U. (2022) · Erkenntnis · doi:10.1007/s10670-020-00252-1 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
The Bias That Divides Us: The Science and Politics of Myside Thinking
Stanovich, K. E. (2021) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/13367.001.0001 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Toward an Integrated Framework of Multiple Text Use
List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2018.1505514 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Resilience to Online Censorship
Roberts, M. E. (2020) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032837 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
“The literature also indicates that pre-existing beliefs could influence the propensity for users documented humans’ that affirms their beliefs and reject information that is contrary to it (Kunda 1987, Taber & Lodge 2006).”
BackgroundBayesian or biased? Analytic thinking and political belief updating
Tappin, B. M., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104375 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Users choose to engage with more partisan news than they are exposed to on Google Search
Robertson, R. E., Green, J., Ruck, D. J., Ognyanova, K., Wilson, C., & Lazer, D. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06078-5 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Rethinking the link between cognitive sophistication and politically motivated reasoning.
Tappin, B. M., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000974 · Cited by 154 · see citing works
Clark, C. J., & Winegard, B. M. (2020) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2020.1721233 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Conformity in Groups: The Effects of Others’ Views on Expressed Attitudes and Attitude Change
Levitan, L. C., & Verhulst, B. (2016) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-015-9312-x · Cited by 129 · see citing works
The illusion of explanatory depth and endorsement of conspiracy beliefs
Vitriol, J. A., & Marsh, J. K. (2018) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2504 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
The Incidental Pundit: Who Talks Politics with Whom, and Why?
Minozzi, W., Song, H., Lazer, D. M. J., Neblo, M. A., & Ognyanova, K. (2020) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12469 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Carey, J. M., Guess, A. M., Loewen, P. J., Merkley, E., Nyhan, B., Phillips, J. B., & Reifler, J. (2022) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01278-3 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Is Facebook Making Us Dumber? Exploring Social Media Use as a Predictor of Political Knowledge
Cacciatore, M. A., Yeo, S. K., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., Brossard, D., & Corley, E. A. (2018) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1077699018770447 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Heiss, R., & Matthes, J. (2020) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2019.1661890 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
“…with right-wing attitudes are especially inclined to seek exposure to partisan content (Iyengar, Hahn, Krosnick, & Walker, 2008), which can catalyze a process in which individuals strengthen their initial predispositions by accumulating evidence to confirm their views (Taber & Lodge, 2006).”
BackgroundThe Uncertainty Paradox: Perceived Threat Moderates the Effect of Uncertainty on Political Tolerance
Haas, I. J., & Cunningham, W. A. (2014) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12035 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Wojcieszak, M., Casas, A., Yu, X., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. A. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abn9418 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Intellectual humility in the sociopolitical domain
Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J., & Newman, B. (2020) · Self and Identity · doi:10.1080/15298868.2020.1714711 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Affective polarization and misinformation belief
Jenke, L. (2024) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-022-09851-w · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Informational cues, partisan-motivated reasoning, and the manipulation of conspiracy beliefs
Enders, A. M., & Smallpage, S. M. (2019) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2018.1493006 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Latent transparency and trust in government: Unexpected findings from two survey experiments
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., Piotrowski, S. J., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2020) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2020.101497 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Opposing ends of the spectrum: Exploring trust in scientific and religious authorities
Cacciatore, M. A., Browning, N., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., Xenos, M. A., & Corley, E. A. (2018) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662516661090 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Resisting Political Fragmentation on the Internet
Garrett, R. K., & Resnick, P. (2011) · Daedalus · doi:10.1162/daed_a_00118 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Intellectual humility and perceptions of political opponents
Stanley, M. L., Sinclair, A. H., & Seli, P. (2020) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/jopy.12566 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Epistemic Communities under Active Inference
Albarracin, M., Demekas, D., Ramstead, M. J. D., & Heins, C. (2022) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e24040476 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Becker, B. (2020) · Social Justice Research · doi:10.1007/s11211-019-00343-7 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Rice, R. E., Gustafson, A., & Hoffman, Z. (2018) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2018.1430046 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
How Do Indifferent Voters Decide? The Political Importance of Implicit Attitudes
Ryan, T. J. (2017) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12307 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
How Effective Are Interventions Against Misinformation?
Altay, S. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/sm3vk · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Pimentel, D. R. (2025) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.21974 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Partisan bias and citizen satisfaction, confidence, and trust in the U.S. Federal Government
Morgeson III, F. V., Sharma, P. N., Sharma, U., & Hult, G. T. M. (2022) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2021.1945667 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Feldman, L., Wojcieszak, M., Stroud, N. J., & Bimber, B. (2018) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1080/08838151.2017.1375502 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Contextual Debiasing and Critical Thinking: Reasons for Optimism
Correia, V. (2018) · Topoi · doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9388-x · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Factual knowledge can reduce attitude polarization
Stagnaro, M. N., & Amsalem, E. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-58697-3 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
“17 , p. 757).”
InfluentialThe Liar’s Dividend: Can Politicians Claim Misinformation to Evade Accountability?
Schiff, K. J., Schiff, D. S., & Bueno, N. (2023) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/x43ph · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Dahlgren, P. M. (2022) · Journal of Media Psychology · doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000302 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Suk, J., McLeod, D. M., & Shah, D. V. (2023) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-022-09801-6 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
The Liar’s Dividend: Can Politicians Use Deepfakes and Fake News to Evade Accountability?
Schiff, K. J., Schiff, D. S., & Bueno, N. (2022) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/q6mwn · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Nordbrandt, M. (2022) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2022.921188 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“, 2015), and attitude reinforcement (Taber and Lodge, 2006; Karlsen et al., 2017; Bail et al., 2018).”
Rekker, R. (2024) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2024.1254826 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Wojcieszak et al No Polarization from Partisan News IJPP Forthcoming
Wojcieszak, M., de Leeuw, S. E., Menchen-Trevino, E., Lee, S., Huang-Isherwood, K. M., & Weeks, B. (2021) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/hqmuy · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Levy, N. (2021) · Bad Beliefs · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192895325.003.0005 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
How Partisan Crowds Affect News Evaluation
Jakesch, M., Koren, M., Evtushenko, A., & Naaman, M. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/baxts
- Authors
- Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M.
- Affiliations
- Stony Brook University (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-06-21
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 755-769
- ISSN
- 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5907
- OpenAlex
- W2132490153
- Cited by
- 4,344
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 305 · 2025: 368 · 2024: 389 · 2023: 293 · 2022: 465 · 2021: 352 · 2020: 409 · 2019: 320 · 2018: 274 · 2017: 218 · 2016: 177 · 2015: 158 · 2014: 134 · 2013: 134 · 2012: 94
- FWCI
- 101.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Keywords
- political beliefs, confirmation bias, attitude polarization, prior attitudes, counterargument, political sophistication, argument evaluation, affirmative action, gun control, democratic rationality
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
