versus bias
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

27
(FIVE YEARS 1)

H-INDEX

9
(FIVE YEARS 0)

Nature ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong Nhan Nong ◽  
Lorenz J. Falling ◽  
Arno Bergmann ◽  
Malte Klingenhof ◽  
Hoang Phi Tran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  


Nature ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 587 (7834) ◽  
pp. 408-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong Nhan Nong ◽  
Lorenz J. Falling ◽  
Arno Bergmann ◽  
Malte Klingenhof ◽  
Hoang Phi Tran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  


2020 ◽  
Vol 117 (35) ◽  
pp. 21218-21229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael C. Schwalbe ◽  
Geoffrey L. Cohen ◽  
Lee D. Ross

Two studies conducted during the 2016 presidential campaign examined the dynamics of the objectivity illusion, the belief that the views of “my side” are objective while the views of the opposing side are the product of bias. In the first, a three-stage longitudinal study spanning the presidential debates, supporters of the two candidates exhibited a large and generally symmetrical tendency to rate supporters of the candidate they personally favored as more influenced by appropriate (i.e., “normative”) considerations, and less influenced by various sources of bias than supporters of the opposing candidate. This study broke new ground by demonstrating that the degree to which partisans displayed the objectivity illusion predicted subsequent bias in their perception of debate performance and polarization in their political attitudes over time, as well as closed-mindedness and antipathy toward political adversaries. These associations, furthermore, remained significant even after controlling for baseline levels of partisanship. A second study conducted 2 d before the election showed similar perceptions of objectivity versus bias in ratings of blog authors favoring the candidate participants personally supported or opposed. These ratings were again associated with polarization and, additionally, with the willingness to characterize supporters of the opposing candidate as evil and likely to commit acts of terrorism. At a time of particular political division and distrust in America, these findings point to the exacerbating role played by the illusion of objectivity.





2019 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 66-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier García-Enríquez ◽  
Javier Hualde




Author(s):  
Zlatica Marinkovic ◽  
Giovanni Crupi ◽  
Dominique M. M.-P. Schreurs ◽  
Alina Caddemi ◽  
Vera Markovic
Keyword(s):  


2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 516-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin M. Luningham ◽  
Daniel B. McArtor ◽  
Meike Bartels ◽  
Dorret I. Boomsma ◽  
Gitta H. Lubke


2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 60-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle Li

Evaluators with expertise in a particular field may have an informational advantage in separating good projects from bad. At the same time, they may also have personal preferences that impact their objectivity. This paper examines these issues in the context of peer review at the US National Institutes of Health. I show that evaluators are both better informed and more biased about the quality of projects in their own area. On net, the benefits of expertise weakly dominate the costs of bias. As such, policies designed to limit bias by seeking impartial evaluators may reduce the quality of funding decisions. (JEL D82, H51, I10, I23, O38)



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document