Menus Subscribe Search

Follow us


Political Tar Is Sticky — Ask Our Muslim President

• August 24, 2010 • 12:14 PM

Hammering on how a candidate seems different from a voter opens the door for smears to adhere.

Opinion polls over the last six months have steadily tracked Barack Obama’s decline in public approval. Even the most optimistic Democratic operative has to admit the trend makes sense — the all-important economy has yet to improve much on the president’s watch.

Last week, however, a much more perplexing poll result came out. The Pew Research Center found that 18 percent of Americans today think the president is a Muslim, up seven percentage points from March of last year. The finding suggests that Americans are not only shifting opinion on Obama’s job in office, but also changing their minds on the facts of his life, trading in what was once a correct answer (Obama is a Christian) for belief in a political smear.

This phenomenon is much harder to explain than the rise and fall of approval ratings. But new research published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General helps explain the processes likely at play.

Spee Kosloff, a visiting professor of psychology at Michigan State University, and several colleagues tested two political smears prominent in the 2008 election: Obama is a Muslim, and John McCain is senile.

People are more likely to believe such smears, the researchers found, if they hold a political bias against the candidate — or if they’re primed to think of ways in which the candidate is different from them. And, it turns out, it takes very little to get people to think of those differences.

Simple demographic questions about race or age were enough to prompt subjects to draw subconscious distinctions between McCain’s age and their own, and Obama’s race and their own. And thinking about those differences made subjects more likely to believe in false smears about a candidate.

“The broad point is that there does not have to be any sort of obvious connection between the differentiating social category and the smearing label,” Kosloff said.

That means if you hold a different belief (or if your belief has diverged over time) from Obama on his handling of the economy, or the war in Afghanistan, you’re also more likely to believe a smear about him, even if that smear has nothing to do with the economy or Afghanistan.

[class name="dont_print_this"]

Idea Lobby

THE IDEA LOBBY
Miller-McCune's Washington correspondent Emily Badger follows the ideas informing, explaining and influencing government, from the local think tank circuit to academic research that shapes D.C. policy from afar.

[/class] “We found that when someone sees Obama as somehow different from them, someone they oppose in any sort of way, they’re more likely to irrationally associate Obama with attributes they fear or dislike,” Kosloff said. “In America, unfortunately, many people fear or dislike Muslims.”

Obama has not done anything particularly to create a stronger impression that he might be Muslim (in fact, the Pew poll was conducted before his recent comments in support of the mosque and community center near Ground Zero). But if he has done anything to turn off voters — in this case mostly independents and conservatives — on other issues, those people are now more likely to believe in a negative smear about him that happens to center on religion.

“That’s where this research that we have done has a particularly great deal of utility,” Kosloff said. “It’s not about peoples’ rational deliberation on the facts. The facts are clear that Obama is not a Muslim, and Obama is not a socialist. The question then is what can be influencing people’s assessment of a factual topic? What sort of non-rational processes can affect the assessment of something you’d otherwise think is apprehended rationally?”

The researchers tested this through a series of studies. In one, they flashed Obama’s name on a computer screen at a speed registered only by subjects subconsciously. Subjects were then asked to identify whether a string of letters that appeared on the screen constituted a word or not. Some of the words were associated with Islam, such as “turban,” “Koran” or “Arab.” (In the parallel McCain experiment, some words related to senility were “foggy,” “dementia” and “forget.”)

The researchers measured subjects’ reaction time to such words, testing implicit association between the candidate’s name and the smear about him. McCain supporters had a faster reaction time to the Muslim-related words after being subconsciously primed to think about Obama. And the same was true of Obama supporters in experiments testing associations between McCain and senility.

An additional set of studies tested subjects’ explicit reactions to a pair of concocted editorials arguing that Obama was Muslim and McCain senile. McCain supporters who did not answer a demographic question about their race believed on average after reading the editorial that there was a 56 percent chance Obama was Muslim. McCain supporters primed first to think about their race, on the other hand, believed there was a 77 percent chance this was true. (Obama supporters showed similar results when primed to think about their own age and McCain’s senility.)

Kosloff hopes that voters will be less susceptible to such smears if they understand the psychology that makes them so effective, and he’s next planning research to test this.

“Basically, how can people learn to take smearing messages with a pound of salt?” he asked.

But he points out the campaign tactic is as old as American politics itself. James Madison was smeared as a “Frenchman,” Abraham Lincoln as a “Negro” and Franklin Roosevelt as a “Bolshevik.”

Even the politicians who survive political smears to get elected don’t seem to understand how they work. When Obama argued recently in defense of fundamental American values applied “without regard to race, or religion, or wealth or status,” in talking about the New York mosque, he may have ironically increased the likelihood that people believe he is a Muslim.

All he had to do was mention the word “race.”

Subscribe to Miller-McCune

Emily Badger
Emily Badger is a freelance writer living in the Washington, D.C. area who has contributed to The New York Times, International Herald Tribune and The Christian Science Monitor. She previously covered college sports for the Orlando Sentinel and lived and reported in France.

More From Emily Badger

Tags: , , ,

If you would like to comment on this post, or anything else on Pacific Standard, visit our Facebook or Google+ page, or send us a message on Twitter. You can also follow our regular updates and other stories on both LinkedIn and Tumblr.

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Follow us


Subscribe Now

Quick Studies

What Makes You Neurotic?

A new study gets to the root of our anxieties.

Fecal Donor Banks Are Possible and Could Save Lives

Defrosted fecal matter can be gross to talk about, but the benefits are too remarkable to tiptoe around.

How Junk Food Companies Manipulate Your Tongue

We mistakenly think that harder foods contain fewer calories, and those mistakes can affect our belt sizes.

What Steve Jobs’ Death Teaches Us About Public Health

Studies have shown that when public figures die from disease, the public takes notice. New research suggests this could be the key to reaching those who are most at risk.

Speed-Reading Apps Will Not Revolutionize Anything, Except Your Understanding

The one-word-at-a-time presentation eliminates the eye movements that help you comprehend what you're reading.

The Big One

One state—Pennsylvania—logs 52 percent of all sales, shipments, and receipts for the chocolate manufacturing industry. March/April 2014