Politics interferes with the ability to assess expertise

October 23, 2018, University College London

Learning about someone's political beliefs interferes with a person's ability to assess expertise, as people judge like-minded peers as being more expert in fields completely unrelated to politics, finds a new UCL-led study.

In the paper, published in Cognition, the researchers found that people turned to peers with similar political views for help on a categorisation task that had nothing to do with politics, instead of seeking help from someone who was doing better at the shape categorisation task but didn't share their political leanings.

"Our findings have implications for the spread of false news, for political polarisation and for social divisions. If we are aware of a person's political leanings, for example on social media, we will be more likely to accept their take on a myriad of issues without scrutiny," said the study's senior author, Professor Tali Sharot (UCL Psychology & Language Sciences).

The researchers from UCL and Harvard University tasked 97 study with categorising geometric shapes based on the shape's features. The participants were told whether their answers were correct and were also shown the answers of four other "co-players" who had completed the same task.

The co-players were actually computer algorithms designed to perform the task either extremely well or relatively poorly.

While completing the shape task, participants were also asked whether they agreed or disagreed with a number of political statements, such as "Immigration gives a boost to the national economy." The participants again saw how their "co-players" answered these questions. The researchers predetermined that some of the "co-players" would mostly agree with the participants on political issues while others would mostly disagree.

In a second stage of the experiment, the participants were shown a new set of shapes and were asked to categorise them correctly, with a financial reward promised that depended on their performance. For each shape they had an opportunity to view the answer of one of the co-players before making their final decision.

To increase their chances of answering correctly, the participants should have chosen to hear from those who had already demonstrated expertise on the task, regardless of political views. Yet instead, the participants sought and then followed the advice of the politically like-minded, even when a politically dissimilar co-player was better at the task.

"When we examined participants' impressions of the co-players we found they overestimated how good the politically like-minded were at the shape categorisation task. This misperception drove the participants to seek advice from the politically like-minded," said Professor Sharot.

"These results suggest that similarity creates an illusory perception of competence which generalises to unrelated domains. This is an example of a halo effect—the tendency for positive evaluations in one area to influence evaluations in other areas," added Ph.D. candidate Joseph Marks (UCL Psychology & Language Sciences), co-lead author of the paper.

"Our findings have clear real-world implications: If people seek out and listen to the advice of those who share their political beliefs over those who possess subject matter expertise, they may end up forming wildly inaccurate beliefs on topics where there are objectively correct answers," he said.

Explore further: Induced changes to political attitude can last over time

More information: Joseph Marks et al. Epistemic spillovers: Learning others' political views reduces the ability to assess and use their expertise in nonpolitical domains, Cognition (2018). DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.003

Related Stories

Induced changes to political attitude can last over time

September 5, 2018

Cognitive scientists at Lund University and Karolinska Institutet in Sweden have demonstrated that experimentally induced changes in political attitudes can last over time. Notably, participants who verbally motivated these ...

Recommended for you

Can China keep it's climate promises?

March 26, 2019

China can easily meet its Paris climate pledge to peak its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, but sourcing 20 percent of its energy needs from renewables and nuclear power by that date may be considerably harder, researchers ...

What happened before the Big Bang?

March 26, 2019

A team of scientists has proposed a powerful new test for inflation, the theory that the universe dramatically expanded in size in a fleeting fraction of a second right after the Big Bang. Their goal is to give insight into ...

Cellular microRNA detection with miRacles

March 26, 2019

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are short noncoding regulatory RNAs that can repress gene expression post-transcriptionally and are therefore increasingly used as biomarkers of disease. Detecting miRNAs can be arduous and expensive as ...

In the Tree of Life, youth has its advantages

March 26, 2019

It's a question that has captivated naturalists for centuries: Why have some groups of organisms enjoyed incredibly diversity—like fish, birds, insects—while others have contained only a few species—like humans.

2 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Nightmare
1 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2018
Eschew eristic. Progressives lie.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2018
A result of politics. As usual, politicians cause problems and blame the people. In an exploitative system with no real necessary validation, which describes many if not most political systems, a common tactic for those in charge is to depict "the other side" as necessarily wholly and completely evil. It's not just that their politics and policies are disagreed with by "our side", they are inherently wholly malignant and foul. The people on "the other side" are all cowards, braggarts, gluttons, wife beaters, children beaters, rapists and morons.
The recent rally where Trump referred to Robert E. Lee as "a great general". The "press" immediately began condemning Trump for saying Lee had fine skills as a general. He was from the South and, in the Democratic Rackets "interpretation" of history, the South means one thing and one thing alone, slavery. So how could Lee have been a good general. He was "one of them".

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.