Anecdotally, attributions that others are biased pervade many domains. Yet, research examining the effects of perceptions of bias is sparse, possibly due to some prior researchers conflating bias with untrustworthiness. We sought to demonstrate that perceptions of bias and untrustworthiness are separable and have independent effects. The current work examines these differences in the persuasion domain, but this distinction has implications for other domains as well. Two experiments clarify the conceptual distinction between bias (skewed perception) and untrustworthiness (dishonesty) and three studies demonstrate that source bias can have a negative effect on persuasion and source credibility beyond any parallel effects of untrustworthiness, lack of expertise, and dislikability. The current work suggests that bias is an independent, but understudied source characteristic.
BakerS. M.PettyR. E. (1994). Majority and minority influence: Source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 5-19.
2.
BriñolP.PettyR. E.TormalaZ. L. (2004). Self-validation of cognitive responses to advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 559-573.
3.
ChaikenS.LibermanA.EaglyA. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In UlemanJ. S.BarghJ. A. (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
4.
ChaikenS.MaheswaranD. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
5.
CooperJ.BlackmanS. J.KellerK. (2016). The science of attitudes. New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
CorrellJ.ParkB.JuddC. M.WittenbrinkB. (2002). The police officer’s dilemma: Using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1314-1329.
7.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS Map. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 40, pp. 61-149). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
8.
EaglyA. H.WoodW.ChaikenS. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 424-435.
9.
FabrigarL. R.WegenerD. T. (2016). Conceptualizing and evaluating the replication of research results. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 68-80.
10.
FiskeS. T.DupreeC. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Suppl. 4), 13593-13597.
11.
GassR. H.SeiterJ. S. (2018). Persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford.
13.
HovlandC. I.JanisI. L.KelleyH. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14.
HovlandC. I.MandellW. (1952). An experimental comparison of conclusion-drawing by the communicator and by the audience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 581-588.
15.
KennedyK. A.ProninE. (2008). When disagreement gets ugly: Perceptions of bias and the escalation of conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 833-848.
16.
KochA.ImhoffR.DotschR.UnkelbachC.AlvesH. (2016). The ABC of stereotypes about groups: Agency/socioeconomic success, conservative-progressive beliefs, and communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 675-709.
17.
KoeskeG. F.CranoW. D. (1968). The effect of congruous and incongruous source-statement combinations upon the judged credibility of a communication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 384-399.
18.
KruglanskiA. W. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational bases. New York, NY: Springer.
19.
LeachC. W.EllemersN.BarretoM. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 234-249.
20.
McGuireW. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In LindzeyG.AronsonE. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 233-346). New York, NY: Random House.
21.
MurrayS. L.HolmesJ. G.GriffinD. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 79-98.
22.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion : Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown.
23.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer.
24.
PettyR. E.SchumannD. W.RichmanS. A.StrathmanA. J. (1993). Positive mood and persuasion: Different roles for affect under high- and low-elaboration conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 5-20.
25.
PettyR. E.WegenerD. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In GilbertD.FiskeS.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 323-390). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
26.
PratkanisA. R.GreenwaldA. G.LeippeM. R.BaumgardnerM. H. (1988). In search of reliable persuasion effects: III. The sleeper effect is dead. Long live the sleeper effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 203-218.
27.
PriesterJ. R.PettyR. E. (1995). Source attributions and persuasion: Perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 637-654.
28.
WallaceL.E. (2015). Antecedents and consequences of perceiving a source as biased (Unpublished master’s thesis). Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
29.
WallaceL.E. (2019). Distinguishing perceptions of bias from perceptions of untrustworthiness: Independent perceptions with shared as well as unshared consequences and antecedents (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
30.
WallaceL.E.WegenerD.T.PettyR.E. (under review). Influences of Source Bias that Differ from Source Untrustworthiness: When Flip-Flopping is More and Less Surprising.
TormalaZ. L.BriñolP.PettyR. E. (2006). When credibility attacks: The reverse impact of source credibility on persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 684-691.
33.
WalsterE.AronsonE.AbrahamsD. (1966). On increasing the persuasiveness of a low prestige communicator. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 325-342.
34.
WegenerD. T.DowningJ.KrosnickJ. A.PettyR. E. (1995). Measures and manipulations of strength-related properties of attitudes: Current practice and future directions. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 455-488). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
WestfallJ.YarkoniT. (2016). Statistically controlling for confounding constructs is harder than you think. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0152719.
36.
ZieglerR.DiehlM. (2011). Mood and multiple source characteristics: Mood congruency of source consensus status and source trustworthiness as determinants of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1016-1030.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
