It's not what politicians say but what we hear

April 27, 2010

There is increasing evidence that individuals interpret the same election message in different ways, according to their personal political views, say experts in the British Medical Journal today.

Martin McKee, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and David Stuckler from the University of Oxford argue that "it is possible for two well-informed groups of people faced with the same evidence to reach completely different conclusions about what should be done."

They highlight a recent American study where three groups who described themselves as either Democrats, or Independents were randomly given four versions of an authoritative news story about diabetes. The stories were exactly the same apart from how they described the causes of diabetes - one said nothing while the other three alluded to , individual lifestyle choices and social determinants such as economic status.

Interestingly, the Democrats and Independents were far more likely to agree with the social determinants explanation but this had no effect on the Republicans. Furthermore, the Democrats were significantly more likely than the Republicans to support action to tackle diabetes, such as restrictions on .

The authors also refer to a study on in Democrat and Republican research participants who were exposed to contradicting messages from both parties. They say: "Whereas those registered as Republicans clearly identified the contradictions voiced by Democrat politicians, they saw minimal contradiction in the statements by Republicans, and vice versa."

They conclude: "Politicians are often criticised for being all things to all people and for making promises that they then fail to keep. However … the problem may be less what the politicians are actually saying but rather how their words are heard and interpreted."

Explore further: New MU study finds value differences within Republican party and similarities between both parties

Related Stories

Does religion make a difference in politics?

October 27, 2008

From Barack Obama's controversial pastor to Sarah Palin's "secret religion", religious values have continued to play a dominant role in the presidential election since John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic elected to ...

Recommended for you

Ancient parrot fossil found in Siberia

October 26, 2016

(—A Russian paleontologist has discovered a parrot fossil uncovered in Siberia several years ago—the first evidence of parrots living in Asia. In his paper published in Biology Letters, Nikita Zelenkov describes ...

Ancient burials suggestive of blood feuds

October 24, 2016

There is significant variation in how different cultures over time have dealt with the dead. Yet, at a very basic level, funerals in the Sonoran Desert thousands of years ago were similar to what they are today. Bodies of ...

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Apr 28, 2010

Above is an underlying neurological extensional approach to Mr. McKee observations.

Chemistry and Gender, as well as political affiliation, require consideration.

I have overcome Heisenbergs' Uncertainty
Principle, in asserting that, had I
read this or not, all remains the same -
with 100% certainty. It is what mathematicians
call an empty set - a set that has the greatest
of all meaning, for all of mathematics. And yet,
Mr. McKee has done the impossible - extended the antonym for meaning. Congratulations. At least
there are ten people on earth who vaguely grasped Wiles'Proof. Mr. McKee goes beyond that. No human hedges hope to ever, or even understand the above. Perhaps by Nature, Mr. McKee willing, we will glimpse, beyond all time, that the above, did indeed, take place. :)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.