Is Information or Motivation to Blame for Partisan Beliefs?
What we believe is determined by more than just the facts we are exposed to, according to a new study in Psychological Science.
Partisanship, whether you support a particular person, group, or cause, has long been known as a key factor in misinformed beliefs—from COVID-19 to Brexit. But how does partisanship drive bias and misinformation? Is it because people of different parties consume different media? Or are we motivated to be biased?
“This is an age-old debate in social psychology … whether something is due to basic cognitive processes or motivational processes,” said Tyler Hubeny, a social psychologist at the University of Texas at Austin. In a new study published in Psychological Science, Hubeny and his colleagues put these two competing theories to the test.
The new study sought to test a common argument that partisan bias arises from differential knowledge. In this theory, researchers frame partisan bias as a byproduct of the information ecosystem, where people of different party allegiances are exposed to different news sources, leading to differing knowledge bases and conclusions. But the flip side—and a more daunting cause of misinformation—is that partisan bias exists because people’s desires influence how they determine whether information is true or false.
“The aim was to try and test that and rule it out and say, well, if we completely take away the differences in prior beliefs, do we still see evidence of partisan bias? And if we do, then it probably is due to that motivational explanation,” Hubeny said.
The new study focused on the United States, where Hubeny and his colleagues recruited over 600 American citizens through an online portal. Instead of using a person’s existing political partisanship, such as Democrat or Republican, the researchers randomly split the participants into Team Spain, Team Greece, or No Team.
“We basically gave them this phony personality test, kind of like the ones you would see on Buzzfeed,” Hubeny explained. The test asked a series of personality questions, which determined the group the participant belonged in. By randomly assigning participants to teams, the researchers were able to eliminate any differences in knowledge that might have existed.
After a participant was given their assigned group, researchers then asked them to judge whether a series of statements were true or false. Some of the statements were favorable to Spain (e.g., “Spain has produced more Nobel Prize winners than Greece”), while others were favorable to Greece. The researchers then analyzed the responses using a method called signal detection theory, which allowed them to measure the participants’ truth sensitivity (how well a participant can distinguish true and false information) and acceptance thresholds (how often they would reject information in general).
The researchers found that even with the random teams, there was a partisan effect in how people determined the truthfulness of the information. This effect was present not because of any differences in knowledge, but because their arbitrary party identity shifted their acceptance thresholds.
“People were more accepting of the information that was congenial toward their randomly assigned team, and less accepting when that information was uncongenial toward their randomly assigned team,” Hubeny said. Therefore, the study supports the theory that partisan bias can exist because of motivational processes, outside of differential knowledge.
These findings have implications for misinformation interventions. “Oftentimes, when we’re talking about misinformation and partisan bias or polarization, we think we all just need to get on the same page information-wise,” Hubeny said. However, the findings from this study show that the penchant to believe false information, or reject the truth, has more complex cognitive origins. It’s not just about “having the facts,” they wrote.
Hubeny noted there aren’t many effective interventions that target the motivated-reasoning side of partisan bias. To seek new approaches, future research should look at why people are motivated to seek out false information related to their partisanship and dig into the specific cognitive mechanisms behind these biases.
“If we can try and pin down exactly what’s going on in motivated reasoning, then hopefully we can develop tools that will be better able to address this source of partisan bias,” Hubeny said.
Feedback on this article? Email [email protected] or login to comment.
Reference
Hubeny, T. J., Nahon, L. S., & Gawronski, B. (2026). Understanding partisan bias in judgments of misinformation: Identity protection versus differential knowledge. Psychological Science, 37(1), 43–54.
Comments
Since I was drafted in 1968 and joined the Navy to finish the last 2 years of my psychology BA, I was fascinated by what the military refers to as “mustangs” – officers who entered military service as enlisted sailors, soldiers, or airmen, then later entered college to qualify for promotion to officer rank. I would usually ask every mustang I got to know the same question, often over dinner, coffee, or beers: “How old were you when you realized you were smart?” No mustang ever expressed offense at that question. If anything, they were flattered.
After the Vietnam War, I finished my doctorate and joined the UT Med school faculty in Dallas. Three years later, the Navy Surgeon General called me out of the blue and “invited” me to return to active duty to serve as PI on a big Navywide study with gobs of resources. How could I refuse? I continued my hobby of exploring what sidetracks bright people and changes the course of their lives and careers. Even two of my doctoral student classmates were prior-enlisted military.
I eventually concluded that “neighborhood grooming” was the prime factor in both self-image and worldview. Everyday social psychology would accept that the influence of our parents and social relations creates a worldview that includes how one views oneself. They often mentioned hearing adults boast things like, “We work for a living!” when complaining about managers at work or anonymous rich people. Few, if any, of their pals expressed any interest in entering college.
Whether the Draft or unemployment motivated enlisting in the military at some point, an officer or senior enlisted member would notice their potential and take a mentoring interest in them, eventually encouraging them to take a free college course. They discovered that they liked it and even got a good grade. At that point, their mentor helped them apply for their service’s military academy or a regular 4-year scholarship. College grooming modified their worldview, and they began to question some of the beliefs and values derived from their pre-service neighborhood grooming. After my study completed, I was having so much fun, I decided to stay in uniform, retiring after 34 years. My first tour at the Pentagon, a mustang I got to know very well, became my mentor for the last half of my Navy career. Admiral Mike eventually became the Navy Chief of Staff.
My point here is that social “grooming” by our friends and neighbors implants a lot of motivation that likely seeks out information sources that reinforce worldviews long ago developed by numerous experiences and sources. Sources that are critical of our worldview are likely questioned and even avoided. Changes are likely motivated by changes in social grooming – casual discussions with co-workers, neighbors, family, and friends over time. Politically, there is likely a reason why some states are RED and others BLUE as birds of a feather do flock together.
APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines.
Please login with your APS account to comment.