Political Bias Proved

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

When people read or hear news about abortion, George W. Bush or Democrats, do they evaluate it fairly before reaching a conclusion? Not at all, say two political scientists at Stony Brook University. Milton Lodge and Charles Taber maintain that people react automatically to “hot button” terms. “Our experiments reveal that they react so quickly—in less than 300 milliseconds—that they cannot be consciously [evaluating] the information,” Taber says.

In tests of Stony Brook undergraduates, Lodge and Taber displayed a “prime” word—the name of a politician, such as “Bush” or “Gore,” or an issue, such as “death penalty” or “affirmative action”—for 200 milliseconds, long enough to register in perception centers of the brain but not long enough to reach conscious awareness. Then, after flashing a brief blank screen, the researchers presented a “target” word such as “delightful” or “miserable” that stayed on the screen and asked the students to press a “+” key if the target word was associated with a positive emotion or “–” for a negative one. The outcome showed that students’ reactions to the nonpolitical target words were affected by their political orientation.

For example, when Republicans saw “Bush” and then a word such as “joy,” they pressed the + key in about 800 milliseconds, but Democrats took around 1,000 milliseconds to do the same. Being primed by “Bush” created an unconscious but negative affect for Democrats, causing them to take longer to shake their predisposition and respond positively to “joy.” Similar outcomes occurred with other political primes and unrelated targets, proving that the students were unconsciously reacting positively or negatively. The experiments show that many people get locked into preconceived views that bias them when they process new data.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Can people rid themselves of bias? Yes, Taber conjectures, “but only after getting many pieces of new information and consciously thinking about the issue.”

SA Mind Vol 16 Issue 3This article was published with the title “Political Bias Proved” in SA Mind Vol. 16 No. 3 (), p. 11
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind1005-11b

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe