Entrapped in one’s blind spot
Perceptions of bias in others and preparation for deliberation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 13019656 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Wenjie Yan (0000-0003-2544-2959, Washington State University, corresponding author), Eulàlia P Abril (University of Illinois Chicago), Kyurim Kyoung, Gang Jing (University of Wisconsin–Madison) |
| Year | 2016 |
| Volume | 1 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 72-90 |
| Publication date | 2016-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Communication and the Public (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2057-0473 • E-ISSN: 2057-0481 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/2057047315625341 |
| OpenAlex | W2326989087 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 56 |
Taking different views into account is considered a virtue of democratic citizens. However, disagreement is often a barrier to deliberation. One reason is that individuals tend to impute biases to their adversaries and, on this basis, prepare for deliberation in less than optimal ways. Two experiments were conducted with results that supported this proposition. Specifically, encountering an incongruent opinion from another person led people to infer more bias in that person’s reasoning and consequently, to be less willing to engage in subsequent discussion with that person, and to be less inclined of using deliberative strategies if they found themselves in the discussion. Furthermore, these deliberative choices were directly predicted by individuals’ expectancy of their discussion partner’s likely deliberativeness based on their perceptions of bias in the partner’s reasoning. Together, the evidence suggests the operation of a cognitive bias blind spot that is likely to undermine individuals’ preparation for deliberative engagement
Cognition · Cognitive bias · Cognitive psychology · Deliberation · Deliberative democracy · Democracy · Epistemology · Expectancy theory · Perception · Political science · Politics · Proposition · Virtue · Law · Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence · Psychology · Social and Intergroup Psychology · Social Media and Politics · Social Psychology
Deliberative Systems
Political Disagreement
Interpersonal Adaptation
Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment
Interpersonal Expectancy Effects
How We See Ourselves and How We See Others
When Disagreement Gets Ugly
Psychological Barriers to Dispute Resolution
Objectivity in the Eye of the Beholder
The Bias Blind Spot
Actions, Intentions, and Self-Assessment
Mediation Analysis in Social Psychology
Testing Structural Equation Models
Bridging the Spheres
Hearing the Other Side
External validity is more than skin deep
A Conceptual Definition and Theoretical Model of Public Deliberation in Small Face?to?Face Groups
Political Communication and the Epistemic Value of Diversity
Bridging the Disciplinary Divide
The effects of expectancies and actual communication on nonverbal adaptation and communication outcomes
Reflexive public deliberation
Measuring Publicity's Effect
Delivering Deliberation’s Emancipatory Potential
Bridging the Divide or Intensifying the Conflict? How Disagreement Affects Strong Predilections about Sexual Minorities
Habermas in the Lab
Agreement and Disagreement in Group Deliberation
Race and Public Deliberation
Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science
The Electoral Relevance of Political Talk
"Naive cynicism" in everyday theories of responsibility assessment
Bridging the partisan divide
Memory for in-group and out-group information in a minimal group context
Perspective Taking as Egocentric Anchoring and Adjustment
Social perception as induction and inference
I, we, and the effects of others on me
Evidence for egocentric comparison in social judgment
Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (don’t expect an easy answer)
Does Deliberative Democracy Work
Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling
Cross-cutting Social Networks
How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions
Deliberative Impacts
Generalizability in Communication Research
Effects of Communication Expectancies, Actual Communication, and Expectancy Disconfirmation on Evaluations of Communicators and Their Communication Behavior
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,3 |
| Citation span | 2016 - 2022 (7) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |