This research examined how people explain major outcomes of political consequence (e.g., economic growth, rising inequality). We argue that people attribute positive outcomes more and negative outcomes less to their own political party than to an opposing party. We conducted two studies, one before the 2016 U.S. presidential election (N = 244) and another before the 2020 election (N = 249 registered voters), that examined attributions across a wide array of outcomes. As predicted, a robust partisan attribution bias emerged in both studies. Although the bias was largely equivalent among Democrats and Republicans, it was magnified among those with more extreme political ideology. Further, the bias predicted unique variance in voting intentions and significantly mediated the link between political ideology and voting. In sum, these data suggest that partisan allegiances systemically bias attributions in a group-favoring direction. We discuss implications of these findings for emerging research on political social cognition.

这项研究检查了人们如何解释政治后果的主要结果（例如，经济增长，不平等加剧）。我们认为，人们将积极的结果更多地归于自己的政党，消极的结果则更少地归因于对立政党。我们进行了两项研究，一项2016年美国总统大选之前（ñ = 244），另一个2020年大选前（ñ= 249名登记选民），该调查检查了各种结果的归因。如预期的那样，两项研究均出现了强有力的党派归属偏见。尽管这种偏见在民主党人和共和党人中大体上是相等的，但在那些拥有更极端政治意识形态的人中却被放大。此外，这种偏见预示了投票意图的独特差异，并显着地介导了政治意识形态与投票之间的联系。总而言之，这些数据表明，党派效忠者会朝着有利于群体的方向系统地归因于归属。我们讨论这些发现对政治社会认知的新兴研究的意义。