Do you ever wonder how two people can have completely different reactions to the same statement made by a political candidate? In Social Psychology there is a phenomenon called confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek out information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs. This bias suggests that minimal psychological energy is used to seek out and process alternative possibilities. Put simply, people interpret information in ways that supports their existing vantage points.
In my work as a jury consultant, I see how confirmation bias affects the way jurors process information and ultimately render a verdict. During a trial, if, after opening statements, a juror feels a defendant is likely guilty of committing a crime, then subsequent information will be interpreted in ways consistent with that general outlook. Evidence that points to innocence will be marginalized at best and flat out ignored at worst. As an illustration, pretend that after hearing opening statements Juror A feels that the defendant probably did in fact commit a heinous murder. Later on when the defendant testifies Juror A will be prone to finding the defendant’s explanations on the stand implausible. To be consistent with the bigger picture, Juror A will tend to view the defendant’s testimony through a skeptical lens: Juror A will be more likely remember testimony from cross examination that points in the direction of guilt, and less likely to recall testimony that suggests there may have been an alibi. After the defendant is done testifying, Juror A’s initial feeling of guilt has been confirmed, even strengthened. The same is true for Juror B. As an inverse example, let’s say that Juror B feels after opening statements the defendant is likely not guilty. Later on in the trial, Juror B will tend to embrace what the defendant testifies to. Juror B will be open to the defendant’s account of events and more receptive to possible alibis or alternative theories of the crime and be more inclined to vote not guilty. For Juror A and Juror B, confirmation bias fortified their pre-existing impressions.
What does this phenomenon look like in politics? On a macro level, if someone likes a certain candidate, they will seek out news stories, whether online, on TV, or in the newspaper that are flattering to that particular candidate. Conversely, if someone does not like the candidate, news stories are sought out that reinforce how much the candidate is disliked and untrustworthy. Right leaning voters will spend more time searching for and reading articles that talk about Hillary’s “short-circuited” answers on her email controversy than left leaning voters. While this deliberate news-searching behavior is interesting, what strikes me as fascinating is how confirmation bias in politics takes place on a more micro, subconscious level.
Why it is that Trump supporters have entirely different takeaways from his recent statements than do Hillary supporters? Confirmation bias is so strong it eradicates our ability to be objective, which is defined as not being influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering facts. In a recent press conference, Trump asked if Russia could hack into Hillary’s emails. His critics said this was a major transgression showing ignorance of world affairs, and was borderline criminal to ask a foreign foe to obtain information on a political rival. Trump supporters said he was just being sarcastic and speaking what is on the minds of many in this country. To this subgroup the real concern is Hillary and her emails. Overall, people who are for Hillary see his statements as confirmation for why they support Hillary, or essentially why they oppose Trump. The same logic applies to the Trump camp. It takes too much psychological energy (which is discomforting) to re-organize ones overarching assessment of which candidate they support.
Another example of confirmation bias in politics is the reaction to Trump’s comment about Second Amendment proponents doing something about Hillary’s Supreme Court nominees. Republicans said he was motivating a segment of the base while Democrats said he was inciting violence. Again, why do rational people have such vastly differing interpretations merely based on political affiliation? Because people see what they believe and not the other way around. People are not truly evaluating the actual comments made but fitting the comments into their firmly held narrative. An ideal study would be to take 10 statements from Hillary and 10 from Trump, show them to people who hadn’t heard these statements, and tell them some local politicians in Europe made these assertions. Then, we would ask our subjects to tell us what these politicians really meant. This detaches the messenger from the message and would give us true insight into what people really think these declarations were meant to convey.
How can confirmation bias be guarded against in the political realm? I think the best way to remain fair-minded and limit confirmation bias in politics is to play a little game of switcheroo. As a Hillary supporter, before lambasting Trump for his unusual request of the Russians, think about how you would react if Hillary said on national television that she is interested in seeing Trump’s tax return and wonders if Russia could locate it. Would you still be fuming about it? Would you then say it was said in jest? Or, before denouncing Trump’s Second Amendment comment would you be so sure it was a tepid call to violence had it been Hillary who alluded to such action? Only when we try to become aware of our biases and attempt to detach ourselves from the psychological mechanisms that limit our objectivity can we be truly more objective and evaluate information based on the evidence and not on a pre-determination.