At least one in seven the great unwashed who vote for Donald Trump will reject the grounds of their own eyes in favor of endorsing the President ’s claims , fit in to a sketch by two political scientists . for make them public while the determination are most topical , the study has been report in theWashington Postwithout become through peer review . Nevertheless , if the research stands up to examination it mark a stupefying monstrance of how far people will go to stomach their candidate over what is before their noses .
Hans Christian Andersen warned us in his storyThe Emperor ’s New Clothesof the extent to which people will bow to peer pressure rather than admitting what they see before them . Yet even Andersen might have been bemuse by the study ofProfessor Brian SchaffnerandDr Samantha Luks , 180 years afterward .
One of the image from Obama ’s 2009 inauguration that has been wide circulated , showing the scale of his crowd . David Stephenson / Getty Images
Schaffner , of the University of Massachusetts , and Luks , of the polling firm YouGov , garner a board of 1,388 Americans and usher them the two effigy , judge as Photo A and B , rather than identifying the various events . However , by the fourth dimension the study was done , two to three day after Trump ’s inauguration , many of those in the resume would already have see the comparison .
Half the participant in the study were asked which photo was from 2009 and which from 2017 . Almost eighty percent of non - voter got the result right , presumably a contemplation of having seen the photos already , or hearing that Obama had the bigger turnout . The number was 90 percent for Clinton friend , but only 60 percent of Trump supporters pick the answers correctly . It is unsurprising that 40 percent of a group who had heard their candidate title might make such a error .
More significantly , however , the other half of the participants were ask which range usher more mass . Almost all the Clinton athletic supporter and nonvoters did this accurately . On the other hand , 15 percent of people who had voted for Trump look at all that white infinite and said the Trump photo had more people – without even being prompted that this was from their candidate ’s event .
In their Washington Post clause , Schaffner and Lukswrote : “ To many political psychologist , this example will be conversant . Agrowing bodyofresearchdocuments how to the full Americans appear to hold biased position about canonic political facts . But scholars also debate whether partisans actually believe the misinformation and how many are knowingly giving the wrong answer to support their partisan team ( a process call expressiveresponding ) . ”
It is well known that people from all across the political spectrum can hire in what is known as “ politically motivated reasoning ” , where they take over and remember claim that suit their views and reject or draw a blank those that do n’t . People have also been shown to becomemore favorableto a policy when told that their political party or candidate supports it . However , the fact that everyone does it , does n’t mean it always happens to the same extent .
It ’s one thing to push aside something that only an expert in the field can affirm through statistical analysis , another to dismiss what is in front of your eyes .
For masses on the inauguration point , Trump included , most of what they could have see was the packed parts of the Mall , prepare the crowd attend as big as that at any previous event . The photographs offered , on the other hand , could n’t be clearer . The work fits with studies suggest that for many people being display to fact that contradict their survey in reality causes them toharden their position , rather than become more open - disposed .
Perhaps the strange look of all this is how short the gang size mattered . Obama not only take Washington DC in a landslip , but bring home the bacon all the skinny states . Trump fall back the area around the capital badly . The lower turnout for his event could as easy have reflected the heavy distance his jock take to journey as depleted enthusiasm . Perhaps this was what most of the Trump supporters in the study were recall , while others may not have been cognisant of which photograph was which , or only did n’t handle who had the bigger turnout .
Yet one in every seven Trump voters were so passionate about the theme they were literally uncoerced to say white is black ( or at least multicolored ) . The oeuvre suggests there are may be no facts that could exchange this subgroup ’s minds , raising the interrogative sentence whether anything can .
