When Disagreement Gets Ugly: Perceptions of Bias and the Escalation of Conflict
Abstract
It is almost a truism that disagreement produces conflict. This article suggests that perceptions of bias can drive this relationship. First, these studies show that people perceive those who disagree with them as biased. Second, they show that the conflict-escalating approaches that people take toward those who disagree with them are mediated by people's tendency to perceive those who disagree with them as biased. Third, these studies manipulate the mediator and show that experimental manipulations that prompt people to perceive adversaries as biased lead them to respond more conflictually-and that such responding causes those who engage in it to be viewed as more biased and less worthy of cooperative gestures. In summary, this article provides evidence for a "bias-perception conflict spiral," whereby people who disagree perceive each other as biased, and those perceptions in turn lead them to take conflict-escalating actions against each other (which in turn engender further perceptions of bias, continuing the spiral).
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?
Viewing oneself as objective while accusing others of bias can promote negative interpersonal interactions, facilitating distrust and impeding conflict resolution.
“Furthermore, viewing oneself as objective while accusing others of bias can promote negative interpersonal interactions, facilitating feelings of distrust and impeding conflict resolution (Kennedy & Pronin, 2008; Pronin, 2008).”
From Everyone I Don’t Like Is Biased: Affective Evaluations and the Bias Blind Spot (2026) · cites this paper as Kennedy & Pronin, 2008
Viewing out-group members as biased can exacerbate group conflict.
“The extent to which affective evaluations guide attributions of bias is an important question, as viewing out-group members as biased can exacerbate group conflict (Kennedy & Pronin, 2008; Pronin et al., 2006).”
From Everyone I Don’t Like Is Biased: Affective Evaluations and the Bias Blind Spot (2026) · cites this paper as Kennedy & Pronin, 2008
This attribution of bias can then encourage individuals to engage in conflict-escalating actions that, over time, lead to stronger negative affect and consequently, greater attributions of bias.
“This attribution of bias can then encourage individuals to engage in conflict-escalating actions (as has been shown in prior work; Kennedy & Pronin, 2008; Pronin et al., 2006) that, over time, lead to stronger negative affect and consequently, greater attributions of bias.”
From Everyone I Don’t Like Is Biased: Affective Evaluations and the Bias Blind Spot (2026) · cites this paper as Kennedy & Pronin, 2008
Viewing oneself as objective while perceiving bias in others has been linked with poor judgment and negative interpersonal interactions.
“Viewing oneself as objective while perceiving bias in others has been linked with poor judgment and negative interpersonal interactions (Kennedy & Pronin, 2008; Scopelliti et al., 2015).”
From Everyone I Don’t Like Is Biased: Affective Evaluations and the Bias Blind Spot (2026) · cites this paper as Kennedy & Pronin, 2008
The association between affect and attributions of bias can promote "bias-perception conflict spirals," previously observed within the context of disagreement.
“The association between affect and attributions of bias can promote “bias-perception conflict spirals,” previously observed within the context of disagreement (Kennedy & Pronin, 2008).”
From Everyone I Don’t Like Is Biased: Affective Evaluations and the Bias Blind Spot (2026) · cites this paper as Kennedy & Pronin, 2008
Cites
Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845 · Cited by 2,452 · see citing works
Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-subject designs.
Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A., & McClelland, G. H. (2001) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.6.2.115 · Cited by 846 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Psychology of Change: Self-Affirmation and Social Psychological Intervention
Cohen, G. L., & Sherman, D. K. (2014) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115137 · Cited by 1,197 · see citing works
Causes and consequences of mind perception
Waytz, A., Gray, K., Epley, N., & Wegner, D. M. (2010) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006 · Cited by 759 · see citing works
Schroeder, J., Kardas, M., & Epley, N. (2017) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797617713798 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
How to study democratic backsliding
Druckman, J. N. (2024) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12942 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Everyone I Don’t Like Is Biased: Affective Evaluations and the Bias Blind Spot
Walker, A. C., Collins, R. N., Walker, H. E. K., Fugelsang, J. A., & Mandel, D. R. (2026) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/01461672261439247 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kennedy, K. A., & Pronin, E.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Pronin, Emily
- ORCID
- Pronin, Emily
- Venue
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-03-14
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 833-848
- ISSN
- 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7433
- OpenAlex
- W2100106701
- Cited by
- 170
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 19.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Conflict Management and Negotiation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Keywords
- disagreement, conflict escalation, perceived bias, intergroup conflict
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Attitude, Civil Rights, Conflict, Psychological, Cooperative Behavior, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Models, Psychological, Prejudice, Public Policy, Social Perception
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
