Expertise Provides Protection against Bias

Non-experts being paid to participate in a survey had inflated opinions of works of art associated with the sponsor, but art experts were unswayed by the financial consideration. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


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.


Money can’t buy you love. It’s assumed, though, that it can buy loyalty—at least brand loyalty. But a new study shows that people with true expertise in a subject have some immunity to the siren song of corporate sponsorship. The work appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Ulrich Kirk, Ann Harvey and P. Read Montague, Domain expertise insulates against judgment bias by monetary favors through a modulation of ventromedial prefrontal cortex]

We worry about bias in all walks of life, from the lab to the legislature. Because “gifts” from special interest groups, whether pharma companies or political action committees, could sway the opinions of decision-makers.

To examine the relationship between gratuities and opinion, researchers asked 20 art experts and 20 non-experts to view a series of paintings. But first, subjects were shown the logo of a fictitious company that would be giving them $300 for participating.

Turns out the non-experts were partial to paintings that were paired with the sponsor’s logo. That preference went hand in hand with the activation of a part of the brain involved in value judgment. The experts, on the other hand, showed no such bias. They switched on another part of the brain that apparently overrode the region won over by the cash.

So experts may be immune to subconscious bribery. But standard yes-men are still a dime a dozen.

—Karen Hopkin

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

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