ArticlePloS one2026
Ideologically biased evaluation of evidence - A signal-detection approach to measure individual differences.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a context of increasing political polarization, ideological bias poses a challenge to evidence-based reasoning and the evaluation of factual information. However, its systematic study is hindered by the lack of reliable and valid measurement tools and by the frequent conflation of ideological bias with ideological stance. Addressing this gap, we introduce the Ideological Bias Expression (IBE) scale, a novel measure grounded in signal detection theory that disentangles discrimination accuracy from ideological bias in individuals' evaluations of evidence. Across two studies using German samples (NStudy1 = 446; NStudy2 = 1,359), we provide initial validation of the IBE scale across two distinct political issue domains (climate change/energy & domestic security/migration). Results indicate that the IBE scale is an effective tool for assessing individual differences in biased evidence evaluation, providing a foundation for future research on its determinants and potential interventions to promote more evidence-based public discourse. Using the scale, we find evidence that ideological bias is empirically distinct from knowledge-related factors, including formal education and political knowledge, indicating that such bias cannot be reduced to deficits in knowledge or reasoning alone. Moderate coherence across two issue domains also suggests that biased evidence evaluation is not purely issue-specific. Finally, in the German political context, ideological bias appears to reflect a combination of social identity dynamics and value-based cognition rather than partisan alignment alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.