東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Do Facts Speak for Themselves? Cause...

Khanna, Kabir.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Do Facts Speak for Themselves? Causes and Consequences of Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Do Facts Speak for Themselves? Causes and Consequences of Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs./
作者:	Khanna, Kabir.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2019,
面頁冊數:	194 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 81-04, Section: B.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International81-04B.
標題:	Political science. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=13886581
ISBN:	9781085650724

Do Facts Speak for Themselves? Causes and Consequences of Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs.
Khanna, Kabir.

Do Facts Speak for Themselves? Causes and Consequences of Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2019 - 194 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 81-04, Section: B.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Princeton University, 2019.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

Observers of contemporary U.S. politics lament the seeming inability of Democrats and Republicans to agree on objective truth, such as the unemployment rate, federal deficit, and other politically relevant matters of fact. These apparent divisions are troubling from a normative perspective. They cast doubt on citizens' ability to form informed opinions, engage in productive debate with each other, and reward and punish elected officials.This dissertation explores causes and consequences of these partisan gaps in the public's factual beliefs. Using a combination of survey meta-analysis and original data collection, I measure the extent of partisan bias in beliefs and experimentally probe its proposed mechanisms. After building a database of national polling data on a variety of economic indicators from 1980 to the present, I find that partisan bias in perceptions of the economy is less severe than past work has suggested. However, the database reveals considerable heterogeneity in bias across various survey items and real-word conditions.In a series of experiments, I test a prominent and troubling theory of partisan bias: selective learning of factual information. I expose partisans to actual facts with either positive (congenial) or negative (uncongenial) implications for their party. I find little evidence of selective learning across studies. Instead, partisans learn facts evenhandedly. While many forget factual information after several days, they are equally likely to recall congenial and uncongenial information, mitigating concerns about bias. I also find that partisans assimilate both congenial facts and uncongenial facts into relevant attitudes, such as incumbent evaluations and policy preferences. These attitudinal shifts persist several days after initial exposure to factual information.Rather than revealing a deep-seated bias in how people learn, partisan gaps in surveys of factual beliefs are more likely to arise from selective reporting on the part of respondents with motivation to express partisan loyalty. Evidence of selective reporting comes from a series of survey experiments that nudge respondents to accurately report their beliefs in response to factual questions without providing respondents with any additional information. However, incentivizing respondents to counter their bias in reporting factual information can have adverse effects on their subjective attitudes.

ISBN: 9781085650724Subjects--Topical Terms:

528916
Political science.

Do Facts Speak for Themselves? Causes and Consequences of Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs.
LDR:03500nmm a2200349 4500 001 2265064
005 20200514111044.5
008 220629s2019 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781085650724
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI13886581
035 $a AAI13886581
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Khanna, Kabir. $3 3542215
245 1 0 $a Do Facts Speak for Themselves? Causes and Consequences of Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2019
300 $a 194 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 81-04, Section: B.
500 $a Advisor: Prior, Markus.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Princeton University, 2019.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a Observers of contemporary U.S. politics lament the seeming inability of Democrats and Republicans to agree on objective truth, such as the unemployment rate, federal deficit, and other politically relevant matters of fact. These apparent divisions are troubling from a normative perspective. They cast doubt on citizens' ability to form informed opinions, engage in productive debate with each other, and reward and punish elected officials.This dissertation explores causes and consequences of these partisan gaps in the public's factual beliefs. Using a combination of survey meta-analysis and original data collection, I measure the extent of partisan bias in beliefs and experimentally probe its proposed mechanisms. After building a database of national polling data on a variety of economic indicators from 1980 to the present, I find that partisan bias in perceptions of the economy is less severe than past work has suggested. However, the database reveals considerable heterogeneity in bias across various survey items and real-word conditions.In a series of experiments, I test a prominent and troubling theory of partisan bias: selective learning of factual information. I expose partisans to actual facts with either positive (congenial) or negative (uncongenial) implications for their party. I find little evidence of selective learning across studies. Instead, partisans learn facts evenhandedly. While many forget factual information after several days, they are equally likely to recall congenial and uncongenial information, mitigating concerns about bias. I also find that partisans assimilate both congenial facts and uncongenial facts into relevant attitudes, such as incumbent evaluations and policy preferences. These attitudinal shifts persist several days after initial exposure to factual information.Rather than revealing a deep-seated bias in how people learn, partisan gaps in surveys of factual beliefs are more likely to arise from selective reporting on the part of respondents with motivation to express partisan loyalty. Evidence of selective reporting comes from a series of survey experiments that nudge respondents to accurately report their beliefs in response to factual questions without providing respondents with any additional information. However, incentivizing respondents to counter their bias in reporting factual information can have adverse effects on their subjective attitudes.
590 $a School code: 0181.
650 4 $a Political science. $3 528916
650 4 $a Social research. $3 2122687
650 4 $a Experimental psychology. $3 2144733
650 4 $a Behavioral psychology. $3 2122788
650 4 $a Social structure. $3 528995
650 4 $a Public policy. $3 532803
690 $a 0615
690 $a 0344
690 $a 0630
690 $a 0623
690 $a 0700
690 $a 0384
710 2 $a Princeton University. $b Politics. $3 2096076
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 81-04B.
790 $a 0181
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2019
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=13886581