Editing Confirmation bias (section)

== Individual differences ==
Myside bias was once believed to be correlated with intelligence; however, studies have shown that myside bias can be more influenced by ability to rationally think as opposed to level of intelligence.<ref name = "stanovich" /> Myside bias can cause an inability to effectively and logically evaluate the opposite side of an argument. Studies have stated that myside bias is an absence of "active open-mindedness", meaning the active search for why an initial idea may be wrong.<ref name="Baron 1995">{{Citation|last=Baron|first=Jonathan|author-link=Jonathan Baron|title=Myside bias in thinking about abortion.|journal=Thinking & Reasoning|volume=1|issue=3|year=1995|pages=221–235|doi=10.1080/13546789508256909|citeseerx=10.1.1.112.1603}}</ref> Typically, myside bias is operationalized in empirical studies as the quantity of evidence used in support of their side in comparison to the opposite side.<ref name="Wolfe 2008">{{Citation|last=Wolfe|first=Christopher|author2=Anne Britt|title=The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation|journal=Thinking & Reasoning|year=2008|volume=14|pages=1–27|url=http://think.psy.muohio.edu/home/WolfePublications/Wolfe_Locus_My%20Side%20Bias_2008.pdf|doi=10.1080/13546780701527674|s2cid=40527220|access-date=11 November 2014|archive-date=4 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304035547/http://think.psy.muohio.edu/home/WolfePublications/Wolfe_Locus_My%20Side%20Bias_2008.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

A study has found individual differences in myside bias. This study investigates individual differences that are acquired through learning in a cultural context and are mutable. The researcher found important individual difference in argumentation. Studies have suggested that individual differences such as deductive reasoning ability, ability to overcome belief bias, epistemological understanding, and thinking disposition are significant predictors of the reasoning and generating arguments, counterarguments, and rebuttals.<ref name="Mason 2006">{{Citation|last=Mason|first=Lucia|author2=Scirica, Fabio|title=Prediction of students' argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding|journal=Learning and Instruction|date=October 2006|volume=16|issue=5|pages=492–509|doi=10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.007}}</ref><ref name="Weinstock 2009">{{Citation|last=Weinstock|first=Michael|title=Relative expertise in an everyday reasoning task: Epistemic understanding, problem representation, and reasoning competence|journal=Learning and Individual Differences|date=2009|volume=19|issue=4|pages=423–434|doi=10.1016/j.lindif.2009.03.003}}</ref><ref name="Weinstock 2004">{{Citation|last=Weinstock|first=Michael|author2=Neuman, Yair |author3=Tabak, Iris |title=Missing the point or missing the norms? Epistemological norms as predictors of students' ability to identify fallacious arguments|journal=[[Contemporary Educational Psychology]]|date=2004|volume=29|issue=1|pages=77–94|doi=10.1016/S0361-476X(03)00024-9}}</ref>

A study by Christopher Wolfe and Anne Britt also investigated how participants' views of "what makes a good argument?" can be a source of myside bias that influences the way a person formulates their own arguments.<ref name="Wolfe 2008" /> The study investigated individual differences of argumentation schema and asked participants to write essays. The participants were randomly assigned to write essays either for or against their preferred side of an argument and were given research instructions that took either a balanced or an unrestricted approach. The balanced-research instructions directed participants to create a "balanced" argument, i.e., that included both pros and cons; the unrestricted-research instructions included nothing on how to create the argument.<ref name="Wolfe 2008" />

Overall, the results revealed that the balanced-research instructions significantly increased the incidence of opposing information in arguments. These data also reveal that personal belief is not a ''source'' of myside bias; however, that those participants, who believe that a good argument is one that is based on facts, are more likely to exhibit myside bias than other participants. This evidence is consistent with the claims proposed in Baron's article—that people's opinions about what makes good thinking can influence how arguments are generated.<ref name="Wolfe 2008" />