Speaking Out of Both Sides of Their Mouths

Abstract

The ideologically objectionable premise model posits that biased political judgments can emerge across the political spectrum. Previous tests of ideological differences in political judgment biases have utilized between-subjects designs (i.e., separate comparisons). In this study (N = 410), we examined whether these biases also emerge in within-subjects designs (i.e., joint comparisons) and compared the strengths of judgment biases in between-subjects and within-subjects designs. Across designs, both liberals and conservatives favored sympathetic over unsympathetic targets in scenario judgments, but biases were attenuated in the within-subjects design. No ideological differences in bias strength emerged, although liberals reported a stronger internal motivation to respond without prejudice toward ideologically dissimilar others. Further, consistent with the ideological conflict hypothesis, both liberals and conservatives were prejudiced toward ideologically dissimilar targets, although biases in prejudice ratings were stronger among liberals than conservatives. Together, results support the ideological symmetry perspective on political bias and prejudice.