• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

错误的等同:美国的自由派和保守派是否同样存在偏见?

False Equivalence: Are Liberals and Conservatives in the United States Equally Biased?

机构信息

1 Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania.

2 Department of Psychology, New York University.

出版信息

Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019 Mar;14(2):292-303. doi: 10.1177/1745691618788876.

DOI:10.1177/1745691618788876
PMID:30836901
Abstract

On the basis of a meta-analysis of 51 studies, Ditto et al. (this issue, p. 273) conclude that ideological bias is equivalent on the left and right of U.S. politics. In this commentary, we contend that this conclusion does not follow from the review and that Ditto and his colleagues are too quick to embrace a false equivalence between the liberal left and the conservative right. For one thing, the issues, procedures, and materials used in the studies reviewed by Ditto and his colleagues were selected for purposes other than the inspection of ideological asymmetries. Consequently, methodological choices made by researchers were systematically biased to avoid producing differences between liberals and conservatives. We also consider the broader implications of a normative analysis of judgment and decision making and demonstrate that the bias examined by Ditto and his colleagues is not, in fact, an irrational bias, and that it is incoherent to discuss bias in the absence of standards for assessing accuracy and consistency. Other conclusions about domain-general asymmetries in motivated social cognition have suggested that epistemic virtues are more prevalent among liberals than conservatives, and these conclusions are closer to the truth of the matter when it comes to current American politics. Finally, we question the notion that the research literature in psychology is necessarily characterized by liberal bias, as several authors have claimed.

摘要

在对 51 项研究进行元分析的基础上,Ditto 等人(本期第 273 页)得出结论,意识形态偏见在美国政治的左右两派中是等同的。在这篇评论中,我们认为这一结论并没有从该综述中得出,而且 Ditto 及其同事过于急于在自由派左派和保守派右派之间建立一种错误的等同关系。首先,Ditto 及其同事所审查的研究中使用的问题、程序和材料是为了检验意识形态不对称以外的目的而选择的。因此,研究人员所做的方法选择存在系统偏见,以避免在自由派和保守派之间产生差异。我们还考虑了对判断和决策的规范性分析的更广泛影响,并证明 Ditto 及其同事所研究的偏见实际上并不是一种非理性偏见,而且在缺乏评估准确性和一致性的标准的情况下讨论偏见是不一致的。关于动机社会认知中一般性领域不对称的其他结论表明,认知美德在自由派中比保守派更为普遍,当涉及到当前的美国政治时,这些结论更接近事实真相。最后,我们质疑心理学研究文献必然以自由派偏见为特征的观点,正如几位作者所声称的那样。

相似文献

1
False Equivalence: Are Liberals and Conservatives in the United States Equally Biased?错误的等同:美国的自由派和保守派是否同样存在偏见?
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019 Mar;14(2):292-303. doi: 10.1177/1745691618788876.
2
Partisan Bias and Its Discontents.党派偏见及其不满。
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019 Mar;14(2):304-316. doi: 10.1177/1745691618817753.
3
At Least Bias Is Bipartisan: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Partisan Bias in Liberals and Conservatives.至少偏见是两党都有的:对自由派和保守派党派偏见的元分析比较。
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019 Mar;14(2):273-291. doi: 10.1177/1745691617746796. Epub 2018 May 31.
4
The politics of gaydar: ideological differences in the use of gendered cues in categorizing sexual orientation.性取向直觉的政治:在使用性别线索对性取向进行分类时的意识形态差异。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2013 Mar;104(3):520-41. doi: 10.1037/a0031187. Epub 2012 Dec 31.
5
Are Liberals and Conservatives Equally Motivated to Feel Empathy Toward Others?自由派和保守派是否同样有动力对他人产生同理心?
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2018 Oct;44(10):1449-1459. doi: 10.1177/0146167218769867. Epub 2018 May 8.
6
Liberals and conservatives rely on common moral foundations when making moral judgments about influential people.自由派和保守派在对有影响力的人做出道德判断时,依赖于共同的道德基础。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2013 Jun;104(6):1040-59. doi: 10.1037/a0032277. Epub 2013 Apr 15.
7
The confident conservative: Ideological differences in judgment and decision-making confidence.自信的保守派:判断和决策信心中的意识形态差异。
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2021 Mar;150(3):527-544. doi: 10.1037/xge0000898. Epub 2020 Aug 13.
8
Past-focused environmental comparisons promote proenvironmental outcomes for conservatives.关注过去的环境比较促进了保守派的环保成果。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Dec 27;113(52):14953-14957. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1610834113. Epub 2016 Dec 12.
9
Ideological asymmetries in online hostility, intimidation, obscenity, and prejudice.网络仇恨、恐吓、淫秽和偏见中的意识形态不对称。
Sci Rep. 2023 Dec 15;13(1):22345. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-46574-2.
10
Ideology and social cognition意识形态与社会认知
Politics Life Sci. 2020 Jul 17;39(1):9-25. doi: 10.1017/pls.2019.24.

引用本文的文献

1
Intuitive judgements towards artificial intelligence verdicts of moral transgressions.对人工智能关于道德违规判定的直观判断。
Br J Soc Psychol. 2025 Jul;64(3):e12908. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12908.
2
Examining emotion reactivity to politically polarizing media in a randomized controlled trial of mindfulness training versus active coping training.在一项正念训练与积极应对训练的随机对照试验中,研究对政治极化媒体的情绪反应。
Sci Rep. 2025 Feb 12;15(1):5209. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-84510-0.
3
Judgements of bias vary with observers' political ideology and targets' characteristics.
对偏见的判断会因观察者的政治意识形态和目标对象的特征而有所不同。
Nat Hum Behav. 2024 Feb;8(2):203-204. doi: 10.1038/s41562-023-01780-w.
4
The relationship between political ideology and judgements of bias in distributional outcomes.政治意识形态与分配结果判断偏差之间的关系。
Nat Hum Behav. 2024 Feb;8(2):228-242. doi: 10.1038/s41562-023-01779-3. Epub 2024 Feb 26.
5
Social Psychological Perspectives on Political Polarization: Insights and Implications for Climate Change.政治两极分化的社会心理学视角:对气候变化的见解与启示
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2025 Jan;20(1):115-141. doi: 10.1177/17456916231186409. Epub 2023 Sep 18.
6
Truth and Bias, Left and Right: Testing Ideological Asymmetries with a Realistic News Supply.真相与偏见,左派与右派:用现实的新闻供应来检验意识形态不对称性。
Public Opin Q. 2023 Apr 29;87(2):267-292. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfad013. eCollection 2023 Summer.
7
Reasoning about climate change.关于气候变化的推理。
PNAS Nexus. 2023 May 2;2(5):pgad100. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad100. eCollection 2023 May.
8
The psychological causes and societal consequences of authoritarianism.威权主义的心理成因与社会后果。
Nat Rev Psychol. 2023;2(4):220-232. doi: 10.1038/s44159-023-00161-4. Epub 2023 Mar 3.
9
Accuracy and social motivations shape judgements of (mis)information.准确性和社会动机影响(错误)信息的判断。
Nat Hum Behav. 2023 Jun;7(6):892-903. doi: 10.1038/s41562-023-01540-w. Epub 2023 Mar 6.
10
Yikes! The Effect of Incidental Disgust and Information on Public Attitudes During the COVID-19 Pandemic.哎呀!新冠疫情期间偶发厌恶情绪和信息对公众态度的影响。
Polit Psychol. 2022 Oct 27. doi: 10.1111/pops.12865.