Influences of Position Justification on Perceived Bias: Immediate Effects and Carryover Across Persuasive Messages

Effects of Message-Sidedness on Perceived Source Bias: When Presenting Two Sides Does Versus Does Not Alleviate Concerns About Bias

Communicators commonly present two-sided messages to avoid being perceived as biased. This approach equates bias with one-sidedness rather than divergence from the position supported by available data. Messages often concern topics with mixed qualities: a product is exceptional but expensive; a politician is inexperienced but ethical. For these topics, providing a two-sided message should reduce perceived bias according to both views of bias as one-sidedness and divergence from available data. However, if perceived bias follows divergence from available data, for topics viewed as one-sided (univalent), a two-sided message should not reduce perceived bias. Across five studies, acknowledging two sides reduced perceived bias for novel topics. In two of the studies, two-sidedness no longer reduced perceived bias for topics viewed as univalent. This work clarifies that people conceptualize bias as a divergence from available data, not simply one-sidedness. It also clarifies when and how to leverage message-sidedness to reduce perceived bias.

Mechanisms in continued influence: The impact of misinformation corrections on source perceptions

Research on the continued influence effect (CIE) of misinformation has demonstrated that misinformation continues to influence people's beliefs and judgments even after it has been corrected. Although most theorizing about the CIE attempts to explain why corrections do not eliminate belief in and influences of the misinformation, the present research takes a different approach and focuses instead on why corrections do reduce belief in misinformation (even if not entirely). We examined how a correction can change perceptions of the original source of the misinformation and how these changes in perceptions can mediate continued influence effects. We also examined causal evidence linking manipulations of misinformation source perceptions to continued belief and misinformation-relevant inferential reasoning. Study 1 demonstrated that an external correction (i.e., a new source labeling misinformation as false) influences perceptions of the misinformation source, and these perceptions of the misinformation source then correlated with belief in the misinformation. Study 2 replicated the results of Study 1 and used source derogation to manipulate misinformation source perceptions and further lessen continued belief. Study 3 was a preregistered replication of previous results using new methodology. These studies suggest that perceptions of the misinformation source is one mechanism that can cause changes in belief in misinformation, and changes in the perception of a source can be achieved simply by correcting the source or through other means. This approach can be used to find other mechanisms responsible for reducing belief in misinformation.

Desirable Biases: Self-Enhancement Is Seen as Biased and Bad, Other-Enhancement Is Seen as Biased but Good

People who describe themselves as better than others are evaluated negatively, particularly when such self-enhancement is perceived as biased. This research replicates this finding, but it shows the opposite pattern for other-enhancement. People making flattering descriptions of their relatives and loved ones were seen as biased but likeable, whereas people who did not do so were seen as more realistic but less likeable. Critically, the enhancement of other people only inspired favorable impressions when it was perceived as sincere (i.e., true in the eyes of the enhancer). Moreover, and in line with an attributional account, the fewer people shared that assessment, the more it was perceived to reveal about the enhancer and how much they liked the target of the enhancement. This research suggests a nuanced version of the role of bias perception in impression formation, whereby biased appraisals are expected in certain domains, and they can inspire favorable impressions.

Ambivalent Stereotypes and Persuasion: Attitudinal Effects of Warmth vs. Competence Ascribed to Message Sources

The stereotype content model (Fiske et al., 2002) defines warmth and competence as basic dimensions of social judgment, with warmth often dominating perceptions; it also states that many group-related stereotypes are ambivalent, featuring high levels on one dimension and low levels on the other. Persuasion theories feature both direct and indirect source effects (Bohner et al., 1995). Combining both the approaches, we studied the persuasiveness of ambivalently stereotyped sources. Participants (total n = 296) read persuasive arguments attributed to groups stereotyped as either low in competence but high in warmth (e.g., housewives) or vice versa (e.g., lawyers). In Study 1, high competence/low warmth sources were more persuasive than low competence/high warmth sources. In Study 2, this pattern replicated when an accuracy motive had been induced, whereas it reversed when a connectedness motive had been induced. These source effects were direct, that is, independent of message processing. We discuss our findings in terms of the persuasiveness of warmth vs. competence of the source as being dependent on recipient motivation; we also consider theoretical implications and perspectives for future research.

Receptiveness to Opposing Views: Conceptualization and Integrative Review

The present article reviews a growing body of research on receptiveness to opposing views-the willingness to access, consider, and evaluate contradictory opinions in a relatively impartial manner. First, we describe the construct of receptiveness and consider how it can be measured and studied at the individual level. Next, we extend our theorizing to the interpersonal level, arguing that receptiveness in the course of any given interaction is mutually constituted by the dispositional tendencies and observable behaviors of the parties involved. We advance the argument that receptiveness should be conceptualized and studied as an interpersonal construct that emerges dynamically over the course of an interaction and is powerfully influenced by counterpart behavior. This interpersonal conceptualization of receptiveness has important implications for intervention design and raises a suite of novel research questions.