How political bias can influence social behaviour
In a ground-breaking study, we investigate whether political campaigning can influence the behaviour of law enforcement officers, and whether this change disproportionately affects minority groups.
Racial inequalities and the way they have been portrayed in the media are the focus for this study and a hot topic of debate among politicians, academics and the general public. Tyre Nichols, a 29-year-old black man, died in January 2023 after he was kicked, hit with a baton and struck with a stun gun by police officers during a traffic stop in Memphis. The incident made international news and threw the behaviour of law enforcement agencies towards black and ethnic minorities into sharper focus.
The role of the media
Author of the study, Dr Diego Zambiasi explains: “There has been a lot of discussion recently on the topic of racial inequalities, and how these inequalities have been highlighted and perceived by society. There is a consensus that political discourse and the media have played a large part in shaping these discussions. “The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has played a pivotal role in drawing attention to the potential biases present in the actions of law enforcement officers.
“By striving to eradicate white supremacy and address violence directed at black communities by both the state and vigilantes, the BLM movement has influenced public perception regarding law enforcement agencies. Over the past decade, the movement’s work has significantly contributed to directing focus towards the potential biases that may exist within law enforcement practices and has fostered increased awareness and empathy towards ethnic minority groups.”
The study examines the complex relationship between political campaigning, racial discrimination, and arrests for drugs in the United States of America during the 1980s. During that time, the War on Drugs campaign became increasingly popular, fuelled by strong political rhetoric against the use of drugs – particularly crack cocaine. As part of the study, researchers analysed more than 11,000 official documents to generate a novel measure of the intensity of the presidential rhetoric against drug abuse by running a topic model analysis of the public papers of the presidents at the time: first Ronald Reagan, then George H W Bush. Researchers then tracked the monthly arrests for possession of cocaine and heroin for 1,383 police agencies in 40 US states from January 1984 to December 1990.
Political rhetoric uncovers racial bias
The findings show the presidential rhetoric against drug abuse did influence law enforcement behaviour in this period. In counties that were more exposed to political campaigning, there was a 7% increase in arrests of black people for possession of crack cocaine but no change at all for white people. This indicates there was racial bias in the behaviour of law enforcement officers, a bias that was exacerbated by political campaigning and subsequent media coverage of the issue.
Dr Zambiasi says: “Interestingly, when considering the exposure to the presidential rhetoric against drug abuse, we did not find any effect on arrests for other types of crime that are normally associated with the consumption of crack cocaine, such as murder and robberies, nor on arrests for other types of drugs.
“This finding confirms that our results are not driven by an increase in consumption of crack cocaine, but by a change in law enforcement behaviour.
“At the heart of our study is the concept of social and political bias. We wanted to find out the extent to which political campaigning could influence the actions and perceptions of law enforcement officers and the general public. The answer is: quite a lot. The anti-drug rhetoric espoused by the US presidents at the time led many people to associate crack cocaine with black people and steered the action of law enforcement officers.
“More broadly, our study shows that bias and rhetoric can have a major influence on social behaviour – sometimes triggering unwanted social movements and criminal behaviour. We saw this most recently in the Capitol Hill attack, during which a mob of Donald Trump supporters attacked the Capitol building in Washington DC after Trump lost the 2020 US presidential elections. This is a clear example of how citizens, ignited by harsh political campaigning, can resort to violence.
“Social bias and racial inequality are very topical issues today. In Italy, politicians are talking about ethnic substitution; in the UK, illegal immigration is high on the political agenda. It’s therefore vital that the general public are aware of the potential biases that this political rhetoric can cause.”
“We’re all biased until someone tells us that we are, and we start working on it."
Food for thought
Dr Zambiasi continued: “One of the key takeaways from our study is the need for people to do their own research and think for themselves. They should make informed decisions based on fact rather than just believing the political spin, as many people in the UK might have done when voting for Brexit in 2016.”
Dr Zambiasi believes that his research could encourage politicians to consider the implications of their rhetoric. It could also assist policymakers tasked with managing the education system to help the public get a fairer picture of what is going on in society.
He continues: “This study shows that politicians need to carefully consider the potentially discriminatory implications of their policy platform. Our results are specific to the political situation in the US in the 1980s, but still provide general insights on how a tough-on-crime rhetoric and political platform can contribute to exacerbating racial inequalities. These findings are particularly relevant in the current policy debate, especially with respect to the recent attacks on Capitol Hill and the protests by the Black Lives Matter movement.
"We’re all biased until someone tells us that we are, and we start working on it. More has been done to shed light on societal bias and I think now people are more willing to question what is said, particularly by people in positions of power, such as politicians. Now we tackle bias more explicitly than we did in the past. This has a wider impact in that it can affect who we decide to arrest, marry, vote for and work for, and what happens in the workplace, for example.”