Both liberals and conservatives accuse their political opponents of partisan bias, but is there empirical evidence that one side of the political aisle is indeed more biased than the other? To address this question, we meta-analyzed the results of 51 experimental studies, involving over 18,000 participants, that examined one form of partisan bias-the tendency to evaluate otherwise identical information more favorably when it supports one's political beliefs or allegiances than when it challenges those beliefs or allegiances. Two hypotheses based on previous literature were tested: an asymmetry hypothesis (predicting greater partisan bias in conservatives than in liberals) and a symmetry hypothesis (predicting equal levels of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives). Mean overall partisan bias was robust ( r = .245), and there was strong support for the symmetry hypothesis: Liberals ( r = .235) and conservatives ( r = .255) showed no difference in mean levels of bias across studies. Moderator analyses reveal this pattern to be consistent across a number of different methodological variations and political topics. Implications of the current findings for the ongoing ideological symmetry debate and the role of partisan bias in scientific discourse and political conflict are discussed.
Feedback has been studied as a strategy for promoting energy conservation for more than 30 years, with studies reporting widely varying results. Literature reviews have suggested that the effectiveness of feedback depends on both how and to whom it is provided; yet variations in both the type of feedback provided and the study methodology have made it difficult for conclusions to be drawn. The current article analyzes past theoretical and empirical research on both feedback and proenvironmental behavior to identify unresolved issues, and utilizes a meta-analysis of 42 feedback studies published between 1976 and 2010 to test a set of hypotheses about when and how feedback about energy usage is most effective. Results indicate that feedback is effective overall, r = .071, p < .001, but with significant variation in effects (r varied from -.080 to .480). Several treatment variables were found to moderate this relationship, including frequency, medium, comparison message, duration, and combination with other interventions (e.g., goal, incentive). Overall, results provide further evidence of feedback as a promising strategy to promote energy conservation and suggest areas in which future research should focus to explore how and for whom feedback is most effective.
Both liberals and conservatives accuse their political opponents of partisan bias, but is there empirical evidence that one side of the political aisle is indeed more biased than the other? To address this question, we meta-analyzed the results of 51 experimental studies, involving over 18,000 participants, that examined one form of partisan bias --the tendency to evaluate otherwise identical information more favorably when it supports one's political beliefs or allegiances than when it challenges those beliefs or allegiances. Based on previous literature, two hypotheses were tested: an asymmetry hypothesis (predicting greater partisan bias in conservatives than liberals) and a symmetry hypothesis (predicting equal levels of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives). Mean overall partisan bias was robust (r = .245) and there was strong support for the symmetry hypothesis: liberals (r = .235) and conservatives (r = .255) showed no difference in mean levels of bias across studies. Moderator analyses reveal this pattern to be consistent across a number of different methodological variations and political topics. Implications of the current findings for the ongoing ideological symmetry debate, and the role of partisan bias in scientific discourse and political conflict are discussed.
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractBaron and Jost (this issue) present three critiques of our meta-analysis demonstrating similar levels of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives: 1) that the studies we examined were biased toward finding symmetrical bias among liberals and conservatives, 2) that the studies we examined do not measure partisan bias but rather rational Bayesian updating, and 3) that social psychology is not biased in favor of liberals but biased instead toward creating false equivalencies. We respond in turn that: 1) the included studies covered a wide variety of issues at the core of contemporary political conflict and fairly compared bias by establishing conditions under which both liberals and conservatives would have similar motivations and opportunity to demonstrate bias, 2) we carefully selected studies that were least vulnerable to Bayesian counterexplanation and most scientists and laypeople consider these studies demonstrations of bias, and 3) there is reason to be vigilant about liberal bias in social psychology, but this does not preclude concern about other possible biases, all of which threaten good science. We close with recommendations for future research and urge researchers to move beyond broad generalizations of political differences that are insensitive to time and context.
OF THE THESIS vii APPENDIX A: PRISMA Checklist and Risk of Bias Assessment 33 APPENDIX B: Funnel Plots for All Included Studies 37 APPENDIX C: Moderator Information and Analyses 38vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my committee chair, Professor Elizabeth A. Martin, who has supported and guided me through the completion of this project. Without her steadfast and continued encouragement, this thesis would not have been possible. Introduction:There is mixed evidence about emotional processing abnormalities in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, with trait self-reports and clinician ratings indicating significant differences between patients and controls, but studies of in-the-moment, self-reported emotional experience finding only small differences between these groups. The current metaanalysis synthesizes statistics from studies measuring the P3 and LPP, two event-related potential (ERP) components sensitive to attentional allocation, to examine whether patients exhibit ERP response abnormalities to neutral and valenced visual stimuli. Methods:Standardized mean amplitudes and standard errors of P3 and/or LPP waveforms (300-2000 ms) in response to neutral and valenced images were calculated for 13 studies (total n=339 individuals with schizophrenia, 331 healthy controls). Results:In response to neutral images, there were very small, non-significant differences in ERP amplitudes between patient and control groups (k=9; Hedges' g=-0.06, 95% CI: -055, 0.43, p=0.81). In contrast, patients showed a small, significant reduction in ERP amplitudes compared to controls in response to negative images (k=13; Hedges' g=-0.32, 95% CI: -0.59, -0.05, viii p=0.02), and a small, but nonsignificant, reduction in amplitudes in response to positive images (k=7; Hedges' g=-0.27, 95% CI: -0.71, 0.18, p=0.24). Conclusions and implications:The current review indicates that compared to controls, patients have slightly diminished P3 and LPP amplitudes in response to positive and negative stimuli.This small reduction may reflect decreased attention allocation, possibly indicating an abnormality during a distinct stage of early processing related to evaluating the motivational salience of a stimulus. ABSTRACT Structured summary2 Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.2
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.