The current research examined how people infer whether novel sources are biased based on their ability to justify their position. Across nine studies, when sources provided weak versus strong arguments, message recipients perceived the source as more biased. This effect held controlling for other possible inferences, such as lack of expertise or untrustworthiness. This research also examined whether perceived source bias on one message can carry over to ambiguously related future persuasive messages. Studies 6 to 8 demonstrated that perceivers use both the perceived bias from an initial message and the argument quality of the second message to determine a source’s bias on the new topic. Finally, perceived bias carried over from an initial message can influence persuasion on a second topic (Study 9). Ultimately, the present work provides insight into factors that affect perceived bias and the dynamic consequences of those perceptions.
BizerG. Y.PettyR. E. (2005). How we conceptualize our attitudes matters: The effects of valence framing on the resistance of political attitudes. Political Psychology, 26(4), 553–568.
2.
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(3), 460–473.
3.
CheekN. N.BlackmanS.ProninE. (2020). Seeing the subjective as objective: People perceive the taste of those they disagree with as biased and wrong. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.
4.
ClarkJ. K.WegenerD. T.SawickiV.PettyR. E.BriñolP. (2013). Evaluating the message or the messenger? Implications for self-validation in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(12), 1571–1584.
5.
CohenG. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 808–822.
6.
CooperJ.BlackmanS. J.KellerK. (2016). The science of attitudes. Routledge.
7.
EaglyA. H.WoodW.ChaikenS. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(4), 424–435.
8.
EdwardsM. C.CheavensJ. S.HeiyJ. E.CukrowiczK. C. (2010). A reexamination of the factor structure of the center for epidemiologic studies depression scale: Is a one-factor model plausible?Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 711–715.
9.
ErbH.-P.PierroA.MannettiL.SpiegelS.KruglanskiA. W. (2007). Biassed processing of persuasive information: On the functional equivalence of cues and message arguments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(5), 1057–1075.
10.
FabrigarL. R.WegenerD. T. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis. Oxford University Press.
11.
FabrigarL. R.WegenerD. T. (2016). Conceptualizing and evaluating the replication of research results. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 68–80.
12.
FrantzC. M. (2006). I AM being fair: The bias blind spot as a stumbling block to seeing both sides. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 157–167.
13.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
14.
HovlandC. I.JanisI. L.KelleyH. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. Yale University Press.
15.
HovlandC. I.SherifM. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Yale University Press.
16.
KennedyK. A.ProninE. (2008). When disagreement gets ugly: Perceptions of bias and the escalation of conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(6), 833–848.
17.
McShaneB. B.BöckenholtU. (2017). Single paper meta-analysis: Benefits for study summary, theory-testing, and replicability. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 1048–1063.
18.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T.GoldmanR. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847–855.
19.
PettyR. E.HaugtvedtC.SmithS. M. (1995). Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 93–130). Erlbaum.
20.
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). McGraw-Hill.
21.
ReederG. D.PryorJ. B.WohlM. J.GriswellM. L. (2005). On attributing negative motives to others who disagree with our opinions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(11), 1498–1510.
22.
ReimerT.MataR.StoecklinM. (2004). The use of heuristics in persuasion: Deriving cues on source expertise from argument quality. Current Research in Social Psychology, 10(6), 69–83.
23.
RobinsonR. J.KeltnerD.WardA.RossL. (1995). Actual versus assumed differences in construal: “Naive realism” in intergroup perception and conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 404–417.
24.
RossL.WardA. (1996). Naive realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. In ReedE. S.TurielE.BrownT. (Eds.), Values and knowledge (pp. 103–135). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
25.
TropeY.LibermanA. (1996). Social hypothesis testing: Cognitive and motivational mechanisms. In HigginsE. T.KurglanskiA. W. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 239–270). Guilford Press.
26.
WallaceL. E.WegenerD. T.PettyR. E. (2020a). Influences of source bias that differ from source untrustworthiness: When flip-flopping is more and less surprising. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(4), 603–616.
27.
WallaceL. E.WegenerD. T.PettyR. E. (2020b). When sources honestly provide their biased opinion: Bias as a distinct source perception with independent effects on credibility and persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(3), 439–453.
28.
WangY. A.EastwickP. W. (2020). Solutions to the problems of incremental validity testing in relationship science. Personal Relationships, 27(1), 156–175.
29.
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). Erlbaum.
30.
WegenerD. T.PettyR. E.SmithS. M. (1995). Positive mood can increase or decrease message scrutiny: The hedonic contingency view of mood and message processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(1), 5–15.
31.
WestfallJ.YarkoniT. (2016). Statistically controlling for confounding constructs is harder than you think. PLOS ONE, 11(3), Article e0152719.
32.
WiltonL. S.BellA. N.VahradyanM.KaiserC. R. (2020). Show don’t tell: Diversity dishonesty harms racial/ethnic minorities at work. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(8), 1171–1185.
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.
