The False Balance Effect: Exploring Partition Dependence as a Potential Explanation

Abstract

False balance arises when opposing viewpoints about a scientific issue are portrayed as more evenly matched than what the empirical evidence demonstrates. We examined the extent to which partition dependence is the psychological mechanism underlying the false balance effect. Participants (N = 360) read a statement about an interrogation practice (i.e., the use of false evidence ploys) that reached expert consensus, viewed data about the level of the expert consensus, and then assigned randomly to view (a) balanced expert comments in equal proportion on each side (3:3), (b) two-sided comments with more consensus views (5:1), (c) two-sided comments with more contrarian views (1:5), or (d) no comments at all. Results showed that balanced comments distorted perceived expert consensus and that two-sided comments with more consensus views had the largest impact on debiasing perceived expert consensus. We discuss the implications of our findings for science communication efforts.