MISPERCEPTIONS ABOUT PERCEPTUAL BIAS

▪ Abstract Do people assimilate new information in an efficient and unbiased manner—that is, do they update prior beliefs in accordance with Bayes' rule? Or are they selective in the way that they gather and absorb new information? Although many classic studies in political science and psychology contend that people resist discordant information, more recent research has tended to call the selective perception hypothesis into question. We synthesize the literatures on biased assimilation and belief polarization using a formal model that encompasses both Bayesian and biased learning. The analysis reveals (a) the conditions under which these phenomena may be consistent with Bayesian learning, (b) the methodological inadequacy of certain research designs that fail to control for preferences or prior information, and (c) the limited support that exists for the more extreme variants of the selective perception hypothesis.

[1]  D. Green,et al.  Rational Learning and Partisan Attitudes , 1998 .

[2]  R. Prislin,et al.  Motivated Cognitive Processing and Attitude Change , 1998 .

[3]  Bibb Latané,et al.  Extremitization of Attitudes: Does Thought- and Discussion-Induced Polarization Cumulate? , 1998 .

[4]  Peter H. Ditto,et al.  Biased Assimilation, Attitude Polarization, and Affect in Reactions to Stereotype-Relevant Scientific Information , 1997 .

[5]  Andrew Kydd,et al.  Game Theory and the Spiral Model , 1997, World Politics.

[6]  S. Keeter,et al.  What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters , 1996 .

[7]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Attitude strength and resistance processes. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  R. Fazio,et al.  Attitude Accessibility and Motivation as Determinants of Biased Processing: A Test of the MODE Model , 1995 .

[9]  J. Koehler.  The Influence of Prior Beliefs on Scientific Judgments of Evidence Quality , 1993 .

[10]  A. Miller,et al.  The attitude polarization phenomenon : role of response measure, attitude extremity, and behavioral consequences of reported attitude change , 1993 .

[11]  Barbara J. Wilson,et al.  The Impact of Social Issue Television Programming on Attitudes Toward Rape , 1992 .

[12]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Defensive Processing of Personally Relevant Health Messages , 1992 .

[13]  Richard Reardon,et al.  Forewarning of content and involvement: Consequences for persuasion and resistance to persuasion , 1992 .

[14]  J. Zaller,et al.  The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. , 1992 .

[15]  Benjamin I. Page,et al.  The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences , 1992 .

[16]  George C. Edwards,et al.  Presidential Approval: A Sourcebook , 1990 .

[17]  Russell H. Fazio,et al.  Biased Processing as a Function of Attitude Accessibility: Making Objective Judgments Subjectively , 1989 .

[18]  Eliot R. Smith,et al.  Beliefs About Inequality: American's Views of What Is and What Ought To Be , 1987 .

[19]  Z. Kunda,et al.  Motivated inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. , 1987 .

[20]  Mark Peffley,et al.  Economic Conditions and Party Competence: Processes of Belief Revision , 1987, The Journal of Politics.

[21]  G. E. Lang,et al.  The Paradox of Mass Politics: Knowledge and Opinion in the American Electorate , 1987 .

[22]  Dieter Frey,et al.  Recent Research on Selective Exposure to Information , 1986, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.

[23]  L. Sigelman,et al.  Judgments of the Carter-Reagan Debate: The Eyes of the Beholders , 1984 .

[24]  S. Chaffee,et al.  SELECTIVE EXPOSURE AND THE REINFORCEMENT HYPOTHESIS , 1983 .

[25]  Gregory B. Markus,et al.  Political Attitudes during an Election Year: A Report on the 1980 NES Panel Study , 1982, American Political Science Review.

[26]  J. Citrin,et al.  Tax Revolt: Something for Nothing in California , 1982 .

[27]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Book Review Nisbett, R. , & Ross, L.Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980. , 1982 .

[28]  L. Ross,et al.  Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence , 1979 .

[29]  Sarah Lichtenstein,et al.  Don't attribute this to Reverend Bayes. , 1978 .

[30]  R. Brody,et al.  The Mass Media and Presidential Popularity , 1977 .

[31]  J. Boyle.  A consistent interpretation of the reference stress method in creep design , 1977 .

[32]  R. Jervis.  Perception and misperception in international politics , 1976 .

[33]  C. Batson.  Rational processing or rationalization? The effect of disconfirming information on a stated religious belief. , 1975 .

[34]  I. Ajzen,et al.  A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. , 1975 .

[35]  Neil Vidmar,et al.  Archie Bunker's Bigotry: A Study in Selective Perception and Exposure , 1974 .

[36]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Comparison of Bayesian and Regression Approaches to the Study of Information Processing in Judgment. , 1971 .

[37]  A. Campbell.  Elections and the Political Order , 1968 .

[38]  Donald E. Stokes.  Party Loyalty and the Likelihood of Deviating Elections , 1962, The Journal of Politics.

[39]  Angus Campbell,et al.  The American voter , 1960 .

[40]  H. Cantril,et al.  They saw a game: a case study. , 2011, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[41]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign , 1954 .