Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence

People who hold strong opinions on complex social issues are likely to examine relevant empirical evidence in a biased manner. They are apt to accept "con-firming " evidence at face value while subjecting "discontinuing " evidence to critical evaluation, and as a result to draw undue support for their initial posi-tions from mixed or random empirical findings. Thus, the result of exposing contending factions in a social dispute to an identical body of relevant em-pirical evidence may be not a narrowing of disagreement but rather an in-crease in polarization. To test these assumptions and predictions, subjects supporting and opposing capital punishment were exposed to two purported studies, one seemingly confirming and one seemingly disconfirming their exist-ing beliefs about the deterrent efficacy of the death penalty. As predicted, both proponents and opponents of capital punishment rated those results and procedures that confirmed their own beliefs to be the more convincing and probative ones, and they reported corresponding shifts in their beliefs as the various results and procedures were presented. The net effect of such evalua