New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

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

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe