Kids learn that their eyes can play tricks on them when they are exposed to a variety of mind-boggling optical illusions. As adults, we are befuddled by a different type of visual illusion. It turns out we’re unaware that what we see isn’t a direct display of reality, a phenomenon dubbed by social psychologists Thomas Gilovich and Lee Ross as the objectivity illusion. Although we assume that our particular perceptions and judgments about the world stem from what’s actually there, it turns out that other seemingly irrelevant factors—such as our beliefs and biases—shape even what we literally see. Unlike optical illusions, which showcase some harmless design flaws, the distortion we adults unknowingly experience can have substantial consequences.

Source: Greg Rosenke/Unsplash

Gendered Distortions

Here's one example showcasing gender bias in STEM. In a study published last month by Yasemin Copur-Gencturk and colleagues, teachers were shown fifth graders’ solutions to math problems and asked to appraise the students’ math ability based on their answers. The teachers were all shown the same problems and solutions, but unbeknownst to the teachers, the male and female names on the work had been randomly assigned by the researchers. So essentially, each solution sometimes appeared to be written by a boy and sometimes by a girl.

Although you may guess that evaluating math ability would follow directly from the quality of the solution presented, the teachers’ beliefs affected what they saw. Those who believed women no longer faced discrimination saw the female-generated solutions as indicating less math ability than those attributed to boys, even though the answers were identical. Through the eyes of someone believing that gender inequity is not a social issue, equivalent female solutions reveal less overall ability.

These results remind me of a recent experiment by Christopher Begeny and colleagues showing that male managers who believed that gender discrimination is no longer a problem evaluated female veterinarians as less competent than male veterinarians. This was true even though the information in the performance review was identical, except for the vet’s name. Once again, believing bias is no longer a problem causes us to see and evaluate material differently.

As a father to a high-achieving elementary-aged daughter, I only hope her math teachers do not believe that women have fully leveled the playing field. Otherwise, they will likely judge her work—even if identical to her male classmates—as revealing less ability, which could set in motion a cascade of negative expectations.

The desire to ensure that our visual judgments substantiate our worldview rears its head in countless examples beyond gender and science.

Source: Gayatri Malhotra/Unsplash

Seeing Who We Are

For example, at the county level, we know that implicit biases along racial lines are related to school disciplining differences between White and Black kids. Given the Copur-Gencturk study, is it possible that those with an implicit bias against Blacks actually view Black transgressors as more egregious and menacing, that they actually see them as doing different things than White kids who get in trouble? Perhaps Black students are perceived as initiating contact with a classmate whereas a similarly behaving White student would not be?

And this isn’t purely a right-wing curse: The results were basically flipped for those supportive of abortion rights. They also held for judgments about whether demonstrators threatened onlookers and screamed in their faces. Clearly, we are prepared to see bad behavior by those we are motivated to dislike and good behavior by those we are motivated to admire.

Attitudes about the police are obviously complex, but how much of our differences can be explained by differences in what we see the police do? In one study, participants were shown a videotaped altercation between a police officer and a civilian. It was ambiguous as to whether the officer’s behavior was inappropriate.

For those who naturally focused on the police officer during the dispute, their general views on the police impacted what they saw, remarkably even on relatively simple judgments. Those who identified with the police were less likely to see the officer engaging in forceful actions, such as touching the civilian, initiating contact, and using handcuffs, than were those who identified less with the police. Optical illusions, 21st-century style, with devastating effects.

When watching 2016 presidential debates, is it surprising that Trump supporters would hear him as being more “well-spoken” than Clinton while Clinton supporters heard the opposite? Is it any wonder that Republicans see a violent, angry “mob” protesting outside the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices following the leak that preceded the Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) decision, and that Democrats see their “angry mob” in the form of parents interrupting school board meeting in opposition to critical race theory?

So, when Representative Mayra Flores accused Nancy Pelosi of “pushing (her daughter) to the side” during her swearing-in ceremony, whether you see a blatant push or a nudge almost certainly depends not on your eyesight, but your political perspective. Watch the video (around the 2:10 mark) and see what you think. To conservatives like the actor James Woods, Pelosi showed her “true colors,” but to liberals, Pelosi simply extended her elbow and forearm to clear some space from a little girl who was leaning into her. These differing perceptions, while seemingly innocuous, result from our division but also perpetuate it. How could you harbor any good will toward a Speaker of the House who, according to your eyes, pushes little girls aside?

Conclusion

There was some thought that getting everything on video—whether through personal cell phones or police body cameras—would reduce bickering and put an end to many controversies. As Farhad Manjo put it, “the promise of our world, the world of YouTube and Flickr, was that hundreds of photographs and videos would be analyzed to converge upon a single truth.” But it turns out, because we unknowingly see what we believe and fall prey to the objectivity illusion, more visual evidence may actually increase disagreement and polarization.