Can children be partisan?
New study finds evidence of partisan behavior among 5- to 9-year-olds—and ways to remedy it
New York University
image:
A sample trial from the partisanship task. Two characters made conflicting claims about the identity of an ambiguous object. The participating child had to adjudicate these claims. In the group condition, one of the characters was from the participating child's group and the other character was from the other group. In the control condition, the two characters did not belong to groups but otherwise looked identical to the characters from the group condition. Image courtesy of Bethany Lassetter.
view moreCredit: Image courtesy of Bethany Lassetter
As we move closer to Election Day 2026, voting preferences are moving back into focus—and with it, analyses of what drives partisanship at the polls. However, asked less often is when Americans show evidence of partisan behavior: Shortly or well after turning legal voting age? As teenagers? In elementary school?
A team of psychology researchers has found evidence of partisan behavior in children aged five to nine—they frequently endorsed their own group’s claims even when evidence suggested otherwise, indicating group affiliation influenced their responses. However, the scientists also uncovered a potential remedy to such responses: When incentivized to tell the truth about what they had seen or when they could provide answers under the veil of privacy, the children were much less likely to adopt their own group’s claims.
“Even young children will side with their group over the evidence of their own eyes, but mainly when they’re responding publicly and when being accurate doesn’t count for much,” explains Andrei Cimpian, a psychology professor at New York University and the senior author of the paper, which appears in the journal Cognition. “However, if you allow them to respond in private or give them a reason to care about accuracy, the partisanship effect disappears.”
The researchers, who included first author Bethany Lassetter, an NYU postdoctoral fellow at the time of the study, Natalie Hutchins, a doctoral student at the University of Virginia, and Lucas Butler, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, note the potential significance of the latter finding in offering insight into the developmental origins of political partisanship.
“Partisanship may start not as a conviction about what’s true, but as a way of showing you belong or you’re loyal to your group,” observes Lassetter. “But there’s an encouraging implication here too: Conditions that reward accuracy or that lower the social stakes of an answer can pull people back toward the evidence.”
The study included different groups of children, aged five to nine, in three experiments.
In the first, children were introduced to two groups, the green group and the orange group, differentiated only by the color of their t-shirts. The children then chose whether they wanted to be in the green group or the orange group, thereby creating an ingroup based on shared t-shirt color. A series of manipulation checks confirmed that they viewed their group more positively than they did the other group. Children in a control condition were not introduced to groups—however, all participants saw the same experimental stimuli.
Next, children saw several pairs of fictional characters, one from their group and one from the other group, who made conflicting claims about objects with ambiguous identities (for example, an animal that looked equally like a horse and a cow). Characters in the control condition wore green and orange t-shirts, but no groups were ever mentioned. Children were asked what they thought the pictured objects were (a horse or a cow?).
Overall, compared to children in the control condition, children in a group (green or orange) were significantly more likely to endorse the claims made by their group’s character about what the pictures showed—regardless of what images actually depicted.
The results raised a key question: Were the children siding with their group because they thought the group was accurate or, instead, because they wanted to be loyal and go along with what their group said?
To examine this, the authors asked another group of children, aged six to nine, to undertake the same experimental task. However, unlike in the first experiment, the children were told their answers would be communicated privately. In a third experiment, with another sample of children aged six to nine, children were put into two groups: One group received the experimental treatment identical to the first experiment, whereas another group was told that the more answers they got correct, the bigger the prize they would receive at the end—this was a way of testing if incentives to tell the truth would outweigh group identification.
The impact of privacy and “truth incentives” was clear: Children who answered privately were more likely to accurately report what they saw than were those who answered publicly. Similarly, those in the truth-incentive group were more likely to accurately report what they saw than were those who received no such incentive.
Taken together, the experiments indicated that children’s partisanship appears to be less about a search for truth and more about a desire for social connection, the authors conclude—and point to potential remedies for diminishing responses not supported by evidence.
“Understanding these early tendencies, and the conditions under which they intensify, diminish, or solidify into genuine belief, may ultimately help explain how group-based distortions in belief take hold and how they might be mitigated,” the authors write.
# # #
Journal
Cognition
Method of Research
Experimental study
Subject of Research
People
Article Title
Investigating the origins of partisanship: What motivates children to preferentially endorse their ingroups' claims?
Article Publication Date
9-Jul-2026
No comments:
Post a Comment