Partisan Bias and Its Discontents.

Baron and Jost (this issue, p. 292) present three critiques of our meta-analysis demonstrating similar levels of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives: (a) that the studies we examined were biased toward finding symmetrical bias among liberals and conservatives, (b) that the studies we examined do not measure partisan bias but rather rational Bayesian updating, and (c) that social psychology is not biased in favor of liberals but rather toward creating false equivalencies. We respond in turn that (a) the included studies covered a wide variety of issues at the core of contemporary political conflict and fairly compared bias by establishing conditions under which both liberals and conservatives would have similar motivations and opportunities to demonstrate bias; (b) we carefully selected studies that were least vulnerable to Bayesian counterexplanation, and most scientists and laypeople consider these studies demonstrations of bias; and (c) there is reason to be vigilant about liberal bias in social psychology, but this does not preclude concerns about other possible biases, all of which threaten good science. We close with recommendations for future research and urge researchers to move beyond broad generalizations of political differences that are insensitive to time and context.

At Least Bias Is Bipartisan: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Partisan Bias in Liberals and Conservatives.

Both liberals and conservatives accuse their political opponents of partisan bias, but is there empirical evidence that one side of the political aisle is indeed more biased than the other? To address this question, we meta-analyzed the results of 51 experimental studies, involving over 18,000 participants, that examined one form of partisan bias-the tendency to evaluate otherwise identical information more favorably when it supports one's political beliefs or allegiances than when it challenges those beliefs or allegiances. Two hypotheses based on previous literature were tested: an asymmetry hypothesis (predicting greater partisan bias in conservatives than in liberals) and a symmetry hypothesis (predicting equal levels of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives). Mean overall partisan bias was robust ( r = .245), and there was strong support for the symmetry hypothesis: Liberals ( r = .235) and conservatives ( r = .255) showed no difference in mean levels of bias across studies. Moderator analyses reveal this pattern to be consistent across a number of different methodological variations and political topics. Implications of the current findings for the ongoing ideological symmetry debate and the role of partisan bias in scientific discourse and political conflict are discussed.

What does recovery from schizophrenia mean? Perceptions of medical students and trainee psychiatrists.

BACKGROUND: The attitudes of medical professionals towards recovery from schizophrenia are key in defining the therapeutic encounter and may change as they move through their medical career. METHOD: A qualitative methodology was used based on three focus groups of medical students and trainee psychiatrists in Hong Kong. Both held pessimistic attitudes towards recovery in schizophrenia. Four major categories and one central theme emerged, with little difference between students and doctors. The four categories were: (1) recovery is defined by the cessation of medication and the resumption of normal psychosocial functioning; (2) formal recovery requires medical confirmation plus the patient's admission of illness; (3) recovery should be discussed, but largely in terms of the contribution of drug compliance; and (4) participants recognized that stigma was an impediment to recovery while holding attitudes that were as unaccepting towards people with schizophrenia as lay people's. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional medical education over-emphasizes symptomatic recovery and ignores the need for a more flexible construction of the concept. Professional knowledge must incorporate both quantitative and qualitative data and inculcate humanitarian concern through active contact with users, and acceptance of the legitimacy of their expert experience. Medical education should seek effective ways to change entrenched negative attitudes in students about schizophrenia and the possibility of recovery. Further large-scale research should be carried out to establish attitudes of medical professionals towards recovery from schizophrenia and how this changes during typical career trajectories. This information could then be used to devise effective means within medical education to combat stigma and change attitudes.

The neural basis of motor sequencing: an fMRI study of healthy subjects.

The present study used functional MRI to clarify the brain regions activated during a series of motor sequencing tasks in healthy volunteers. Ten subjects were scanned while performing three soft signs tasks ranging from simple (PT: palm tapping), moderate (PS: pronation/supination) to complex movements (FEP: fist-edge-palm). The FEP task induced significant activations within the cortical networks including bilateral sensorimotor, SMA, left parietal, and right cerebellum, but no activation in the prefrontal area. Moreover, the percentage signal changes within the left sensorimotor, left thalamus and right cerebellum showed an increase in activation with task complexity. The present findings challenge the traditional belief that FEP was a task for frontal lobe function but suggest that successful performance of more complex neurological soft sign tasks like FEP requires the participation of more brain areas than simple motor sequencing and coordination task like PS and PT. These also provide the empirical data on the neural basis of neurological soft signs for further study in other clinical group like schizophrenia in the near future.