The DOI matches its Crossref record; 115 of the 115 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Partisan Bias in Political Judgment
Open accessAbstract
This article reviews empirical data demonstrating robust ingroup favoritism in political judgment. Partisans display systematic tendencies to seek out, believe, and remember information that supports their political beliefs and affinities. However, the psychological drivers of partisan favoritism have been vigorously debated, as has its consistency with rational inference. We characterize decades-long debates over whether such tendencies violate normative standards of rationality, focusing on the phenomenon of motivated reasoning. In light of evidence that both motivational and cognitive factors contribute to partisan bias, we advocate for a descriptive approach to partisan bias research. Rather than adjudicating the (ir)rationality of partisan favoritism, future research should prioritize the identification and measurement of its predictors and clarify the cognitive mechanisms underlying motivated political reasoning. Ultimately, we argue that political judgment is best evaluated by a standard of ecological rationality based on its practical implications for individual well-being and functional democratic governance.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
Citations
Cites
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
Bem, D. J. (1972) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60024-6 · Cited by 5,241
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098 · Cited by 4,583
Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaa1160 · Cited by 3,245
Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena.
Bem, D. J. (1967) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0024835 · Cited by 2,959
Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction?
Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0076486 · Cited by 2,575
Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12152 · Cited by 2,452
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109 · Cited by 2,031
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011 · Cited by 2,022
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- 1957, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
- 1958, The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations
- 1995, Varieties of confirmation bias, 32, 385
- 2014, Choice and Preference in Media Use: Advances in Selective Exposure Theory and Research
- 1980, Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment
- 2020, Metacognitive experiences as information: processing fluency in consumer judgment and decision making. Consum, Psychol. Rev., 4, 4
- 1984, Ordinary Vices
- 2021, The Bias That Divides Us: The Science and Politics of Myside Thinking
- 2023, Megastudy identifying effective interventions to strengthen Americans’ democratic attitudes, OSF Preprints
- 1946 (1917), Science as a vocation, 129
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Debunking Three Myths About Misinformation
Gawronski, B., Nahon, L. S., & Ng, N. L. (2024) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/09637214241280907 · Cited by 27
Ideology: Psychological Similarities and Differences Across the Ideological Spectrum Reexamined
Kteily, N., & Brandt, M. J. (2024) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-020124-115253 · Cited by 35
Understanding the neurocognitive mechanisms of cognitive security
Crum, J. E., II, Allred, A. R., Bostrom, S. R., Doherty, E. J., McLain, M., Richardson, E. E., Spencer, C. A., Niemeyer, R. E., Anderson, A. P., Tossell, C. C., et al. (2025) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106448 · Cited by 4
Hubeny, T. J., Nahon, L. S., & Gawronski, B. (2026) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/09567976251404040 · Cited by 3
“Some have argued that partisan bias is driven in part by motivated reasoning (Celniker & Ditto, 2024; Ditto et al., 2025; Kahan, 2016; Peterson & Iyengar, 2021; Van Bavel et al., 2024).”
InfluentialUsing Artificial Intelligence to Better Understand Human Intelligence
Pennycook, G., Costello, T. H., & Rand, D. G. (2026) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/09637214261417960 · Cited by 2
“…consequence of focusing on the social implications of our reasoning, research on motivated reasoning often conjectures that accuracy or truth-related goals are superseded by identity-based or so-called tribalistic concerns (Clark & Winegard, 2020; Ditto et al., 2024; Haidt, 2001; Kahan, 2013).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Ditto, P. H., Celniker, J. B., Siddiqi, S. S., Güngör, M., & Relihan, D. P.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Arizona State University (US)
- Venue
- Annual Review of Psychology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2025-01-17
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 717-740
- ISSN
- 0066-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-2085
- OpenAlex
- W4402265865
- Semantic Scholar
- cd99f85b5e1645cddffe103d4b529ca872c658f6
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 113
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 9
- FWCI
- 3.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Annual Review of Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- partisan bias, political judgment, motivated reasoning, in-group favoritism, confirmation bias, rational inference, ecological rationality, cognitive mechanisms, democratic governance
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Judgment, Motivation, Politics
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.
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-23 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
