1 Department of Psychological Science, University of California, Irvine.
2 Department of Psychology, Durham University.
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019 Mar;14(2):304-316. doi: 10.1177/1745691618817753.
Baron and Jost (this issue, p. 292) present three critiques of our meta-analysis demonstrating similar levels of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives: (a) that the studies we examined were biased toward finding symmetrical bias among liberals and conservatives, (b) that the studies we examined do not measure partisan bias but rather rational Bayesian updating, and (c) that social psychology is not biased in favor of liberals but rather toward creating false equivalencies. We respond in turn that (a) 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 opportunities to demonstrate bias; (b) we carefully selected studies that were least vulnerable to Bayesian counterexplanation, and most scientists and laypeople consider these studies demonstrations of bias; and (c) there is reason to be vigilant about liberal bias in social psychology, but this does not preclude concerns 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.
巴伦和乔斯特（本期，第 292 页）对我们的元分析提出了三点批评，这些批评表明自由派和保守派之间存在类似程度的党派偏见：（a）我们研究的这些研究偏向于发现自由派和保守派之间的对称偏见；（b）我们研究的这些研究不是衡量党派偏见，而是理性贝叶斯更新；（c）社会心理学不是偏向于支持自由派，而是倾向于创造虚假的等同。我们依次回应说：（a）所包括的研究涵盖了当代政治冲突核心的广泛问题，并通过建立自由派和保守派都有类似动机和机会表现偏见的条件，公平地比较了偏见；（b）我们精心选择了最不容易受到贝叶斯反驳的研究，大多数科学家和非专业人士认为这些研究是偏见的表现；（c）有理由对社会心理学中的自由派偏见保持警惕，但这并不排除对其他可能偏见的关注，所有这些偏见都威胁到良好的科学。我们最后提出了未来研究的建议，并敦促研究人员超越对时间和背景不敏感的政治差异的广泛概括。
