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.

Characteristics of U.S. veterans who begin and complete prolonged exposure and cognitive processing therapy for PTSD.

This retrospective chart-review study examined patient-level correlates of initiation and completion of evidence-based psychotherapy (EBP) for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among treatment-seeking U.S. veterans. We identified all patients (N = 796) in a large Veterans Affairs PTSD and anxiety clinic who attended at least 1 individual psychotherapy appointment with 1 of 8 providers trained in EBP. Within this group, 91 patients (11.4%) began EBP (either Cognitive Processing Therapy or Prolonged Exposure) and 59 patients (7.9%) completed EBP. The medical records of all EBP patients (n = 91) and a provider-matched sample of patients who received another form of individual psychotherapy (n = 66) were reviewed by 4 independent raters. Logistic regression analyses revealed that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans were less likely to begin EBP than veterans from other service eras, OR = 0.48, 95% CI = [0.24, 0.94], and veterans who were service connected for PTSD were more likely than veterans without service connection to begin EBP, OR = 2.33, 95% CI = [1.09, 5.03]. Among those who began EBP, Iraq and Afghanistan veteran status, OR = 0.09, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.30], and a history of psychiatric inpatient hospitalization, OR = 0.13, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.54], were associated with decreased likelihood of EBP completion.

Increasing engagement in evidence-based PTSD treatment through shared decision-making: a pilot study.

Within the Veterans Health Administration, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment decisions are left to the patient and provider, allowing substantial variability in the way treatment decisions are made. Theorized to increase treatment engagement, shared decision-making interventions provide a standardized framework for treatment decisions. This study sought to develop (phase 1) and pilot test the feasibility and potential effectiveness (phase 2) of a brief shared decision-making intervention to promote engagement in evidence-based PTSD treatment. An initial version of the intervention was developed and then modified according to stakeholder feedback. Participants in the pilot trial were 27 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans recruited during an intake assessment at a Veterans Affairs PTSD clinic. Participants randomized to the intervention condition (n = 13) participated in a 30-minute shared decision-making session, whereas patients randomized to the usual care condition (n = 14) completed treatment planning during their intake appointment, per usual clinic procedures. Among the 20 study completers, a greater proportion of participants in the intervention condition preferred an evidence-based treatment and received an adequate (≥9 sessions) dose of psychotherapy. Results provide preliminary support for the feasibility and potential effectiveness of the intervention and suggest that larger-scale trials are warranted.