Partisan bias in factual beliefs about politics
Open accessAbstract
Partisanship seems to affect factual beliefs about politics. For example, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say that the deficit rose during the Clinton administration; Democrats are more likely to say that inflation rose under Reagan. What remains unclear is whether such patterns reflect differing beliefs among partisans or instead reflect a desire to praise one party or criticize another. To shed light on this question, we present a model of survey response in the presence of partisan cheerleading and payments for correct and “don’t know” responses. We design two experiments based on the model’s implications. The experiments show that small payments for correct and “don’t know” answers sharply diminish the gap between Democrats and Republicans in responses to “partisan” factual questions. Our conclusion is that the apparent gulf in factual beliefs between members of different parties may be more illusory than real. The experiments also bolster and extend a major finding about political knowledge in America: we show (as others have) that Americans know little about politics, but we also show that they often recognize their own lack of knowledge.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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 cheerleading account, partisans are in fact well informed, but prefer to act misinformed in surveys.
“In this view, partisans are in fact well informed, but prefer to act misinformed in surveys.”
From Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? (2019) · cites this paper as Bullock et al., 2015
The Abstract says partisan survey answers may reflect expressive cheerleading rather than sincere beliefs. But the Conclusion says cheerleading can be either informed or uninformed, so the claim overstates the account by saying partisans are well informed. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe persistence of partisan divides in factual beliefs among incentivized groups is noticeably higher than in previous work.
“The persistence of partisan divides in factual beliefs among the groups provided with incentives is noticeably higher than in previous work.”
From Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? (2019) · cites this paper as Bullock et al. (2015, 521)
Experiment 1 reports that about 45% of the partisan gap remained when participants were incentivized to answer correctly. The Theory and Prior Evidence section says earlier incentive research did not examine partisan patterns in responses, so the paper does not establish that this persistence was higher than in previous work. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPolitical scientists have found that partisan bias effects on question-answering accuracy are significantly reduced when respondents are offered a monetary bonus for correct answers.
“Political scientists have found that partisan bias effects on questionanswering accuracy [Bartels, 2002] are significantly reduced when respondents are offered a monetary bonus for correct answers [Bullock et al., 2015, Prior et al., 2015].”
From Talk Isn't Always Cheap: Understanding Failure Modes in Multi-Agent Debate (2025) · cites this paper as Bullock et al., 2015
Even beliefs about measurable political and economic indicators can reflect partisan bias.
“According to Bullock et al. (2015), even beliefs about measurable political and economic indicators can reflect partisan bias.”
From ¿Demasiado lejos? Cómo la polarización mal percibida alimenta la polarización afectiva en España (2025) · cites this paper as Bullock et al. (2015)
The treatment effects of incentives across these studies are of similar magnitude to those observed in Bullock et al. (2015).
“While the treatment e↵ects of incentives across these studies are of similar magnitude to those observed in Bullock et al. (2015), the initial partisan gap on these items is much larger than previously obtained in incentive-based designs.”
From Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? (2019) · cites this paper as Bullock et al. (2015)
Bullock et al. (2015) found that the partisan difference in information fell by half among respondents informed that their chances of winning a 200 dollar gift certificate would increase with correct answers.
“The partisan di↵erence in information, which was substantial among respondents o↵ered no incentive, fell by half among respondents informed that their chances of winning a 200 dollar gift certificate would increase with correct answers.”
From Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? (2019) · cites this paper as Bullock et al., 2015
Bullock et al. (2015, 521) find that only 40% to 45% of the initial partisan gaps remain when incentives are made available.
“In the closest comparison, Bullock et al. (2015, 521) find that only 40% to 45% of the initial partisan gaps remain when incentives are made available.”
From Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? (2019) · cites this paper as Bullock et al. (2015, 521)
The initial partisan gap on these items is much larger than previously obtained in incentive-based designs.
“While the treatment e↵ects of incentives across these studies are of similar magnitude to those observed in Bullock et al. (2015), the initial partisan gap on these items is much larger than previously obtained in incentive-based designs.”
From Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? (2019) · cites this paper as Bullock et al. (2015)
The amount of $0.50 per question falls between incentive levels used in previous studies.
“In a point we later revisit when discussing the implications of our findings, this amount falls in between the incentive levels used in previous studies.”
From Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? (2019) · cites this paper as Bullock et al. (2015)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- Berinsky, Adam J. 2005. Silent Voices: Public Opinion and Participation in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Conover, Pamela J., Stanley Feldman, and Kathleen Knight. 1986. "Judging Inflation and Unemployment: The Origins of Retrospective Evaluations." Journal of Politics 48 (3): 565-88.
- Conover, Pamela J., Stanley Feldman, and Kathleen Knight. 1987. "The Personal and Political Underpinnings of Economic Forecasts." American Journal of Political Science 31 (August): 559- 583.
- Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Gaines, Brian J., James H. Kuklinski, Paul J. Quirk, Buddy Peyton, and Jay Verkuilen. 2007. "Same Facts, Different Interpretations: Partisan Motivation and Opinion on Iraq." Journal of Politics 69 (November): 957-74.
- Gerber, Alan S., and Gregory A. Huber. 2010. "Partisanship, Political Control, and Economic Assessments." American Journal of Political Science 54 (January): 153-73.
- Gerber, Alan S., Gregory A. Huber, Ebonya Washington. 2010. "Party Affiliation, Partisanship, and Political Beliefs: A Field Experiment." American Political Science Review 104 (4 November): 720-744.
- Green, Donald, Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Schickler. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Healy, Andrew, and Neil Malhotra. 2009. "Myopic Voters and Natural Disaster Policy." American Political Science Review 103 (3): 387-406.
- Iyengar, Shanto, Gaurav Sood, and Yphtach Lelkes. 2012. "Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization." Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (Fall): 405-31.
- Jacobson, Gary C. 2006. A Divider, Not a Uniter: George W. Bush and the American People. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
- Jerit, Jennifer, and Jason Barabas. 2012. "Partisan Perceptual Bias and the Information Environment." Journal of Politics 74: 672-684.
- Kuklinski, James H., Michael D. Cobb, and Martin Gilens. 1997. "Racial Attitudes and the 'New South'." Journal of Politics 59 (May): 323-49.
- Lau, Richard R., David O. Sears, and Tom Jessor. 1990. "Fact or Artifact Revisited: Survey Instrument Effects and Pocketbook Politics." Political Behavior 12 (3): 217-242.
- Lavine, Howard G., Christopher D. Johnston, and Marco R. Steenbergen. 2012. The Ambivalent Partisan: How Critical Loyalty Promotes Democracy. Oxford University Press.
- Morton, Rebecca C., and Kenneth C. Williams. 2010. Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth. 1993. The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion, Our Social Skin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Palmer, Harvey D., and Raymond M. Duch. 2001. "Do Surveys Provide Representative or Whimsical Assessments of the Economy?" Political Analysis 9 (1): 58-77.
- Prior, Markus. 2007. "Is Partisan Bias in Perceptions of Objective Conditions Real? The Effect of an Accuracy Incentive on the Stated Beliefs of Partisans." Presented at the Annual Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
- Prior, Markus, and Arthur Lupia. 2008. "Money, Time, and Political Knowledge: Distinguishing Quick Recall and Political Learning Skills." American Journal of Political Science 52 (January): 169-83.
- Sears, David O., and Richard R. Lau. 1983. "Inducing Apparently Self-Interested Political Preferences." American Journal of Political Science 27 (May): 223-252.
- Shapiro, Robert Y., and Yaeli Bloch-Elkon. 2008. "Do the Facts Speak for Themselves? Partisan Disagreement as a Challenge to Democratic Competence." Critical Review 20 (1): 115-39.
- Stroud, Natalie J. 2008. "Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure." Political Behavior 30 (3): 341-366.
- Wilcox, Nathaniel, and Christopher Wlezien. 1993. "The Contamination of Responses to Survey Items: Economic Perceptions and Political Judgments." Political Analysis 5 (1): 181-213.
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
The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034 · Cited by 3,317 · see citing works
Understanding Conspiracy Theories
Douglas, K. M., Uscinski, J. E., Sutton, R. M., Cichocka, A., Nefes, T., Ang, C. S., & Deravi, F. (2019) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12568 · Cited by 1,511 · 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
Allcott, H., Boxell, L., Conway, J., Gentzkow, M., Thaler, M., & Yang, D. (2020) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104254 · Cited by 999 · 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
The Partisan Brain: An Identity-Based Model of Political Belief
Van Bavel, J. J., & Pereira, A. (2018) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.004 · Cited by 743 · see citing works
The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation
Druckman, J. N., & McGrath, M. C. (2019) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0360-1 · Cited by 733 · see citing works
Partisanship, health behavior, and policy attitudes in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic
Gadarian, S. K., Goodman, S. W., & Pepinsky, T. B. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0249596 · Cited by 744 · see citing works
Gollwitzer, A., Martel, C., Brady, W. J., Pärnamets, P., Freedman, I. G., Knowles, E. D., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-00977-7 · Cited by 609 · see citing works
The Parties in Our Heads: Misperceptions about Party Composition and Their Consequences
Ahler, D. J., & Sood, G. (2018) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/697253 · Cited by 586 · see citing works
Weeks, B. E. (2015) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12164 · Cited by 531 · 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
Do I Think BLS Data are BS? The Consequences of Conspiracy Theories
Einstein, K. L., & Glick, D. M. (2015) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-014-9287-z · Cited by 277 · see citing works
Jerit, J., & Zhao, Y. (2020) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032814 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
Peterson, E., & Iyengar, S. (2019) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/pmn7h · Cited by 241 · see citing works
Political Psychology in the Digital (mis)Information age: A Model of News Belief and Sharing
Van Bavel, J. J., Harris, E. A., Pärnamets, P., Rathje, S., Doell, K. C., & Tucker, J. A. (2021) · Social Issues and Policy Review · doi:10.1111/sipr.12077 · Cited by 213 · 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
Self-citationThe 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
The Inseparability of Race and Partisanship in the United States
Westwood, S. J., & Peterson, E. (2022) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-020-09648-9 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Tsai, L. L., Morse, B. S., & Blair, R. A. (2020) · Comparative Political Studies · doi:10.1177/0010414019897698 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
How Can Psychological Science Help Counter the Spread of Fake News?
van der Linden, S., Roozenbeek, J., Maertens, R., Basol, M., Kácha, O., Rathje, S., & Traberg, C. S. (2021) · The Spanish Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1017/sjp.2021.23 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Lee, N., Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Flynn, D. J. (2021) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s000712342000037x · Cited by 39 · see citing works
A Negativity Bias in Reframing Shapes Political Preferences Even in Partisan Contexts
Boydstun, A. E., Ledgerwood, A., & Sparks, J. (2019) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550617733520 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
The Role of Source, Headline and Expressive Responding in Political News Evaluation
Jakesch, M., Koren, M., Evtushenko, A., & Naaman, M. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3306403 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Toeing the Party Lie: Ostracism Promotes Endorsement of Partisan Election Falsehoods
Garrett, R. K., Sude, D., & Riva, P. (2020) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2019.1666943 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Typecast: A Routine Mental Shortcut Causes Party Stereotyping
Ahler, D. J., & Sood, G. (2023) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-022-09780-8 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Political surveys bias self‐reported economic perceptions
Bailey, J. (2022) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfab054 · 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
“There is an active debate in the literature about whether partisans ’ tendency to provide politically favorable responses to factual questions re fl ects genuine differences in beliefs or insincere survey responding 38 – 40 .”
The 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
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
Levy, N. (2021) · Bad Beliefs · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192895325.003.0005 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Talk Isn't Always Cheap: Understanding Failure Modes in Multi-Agent Debate
Wynn, A., Satija, H., & Hadfield, G. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.05396 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“These results imply that naive debate protocols risk prop-6 agating errors instead of correcting them.”
¿Demasiado lejos? Cómo la polarización mal percibida alimenta la polarización afectiva en España
Rojo-Martínez, J. M. (2025) · Papers. Revista de Sociologia · doi:10.5565/rev/papers.3363
- Authors
- Bullock, J. G., Gerber, A. S., Hill, S. J., & Huber, G. A.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Yale University (US)
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Venue
- Quarterly Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2015-12-17
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 519-578
- ISSN
- 1554-0626 (ISSN-L)
- 1554-0634
- OpenAlex
- W1559877068
- Cited by
- 686
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 45 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 86 · 2022: 74 · 2021: 84 · 2020: 76 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 88 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 80.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Quarterly Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion)
- National Bureau of Economic Research (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Keywords
- partisan bias, political knowledge, Democrats and Republicans
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
