By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm:
Whether we are talking about Minnesota or Greenland, or a score of other contested narratives within the field of political conflict, the role of a person’s ideological and partisan leaning has probably never been more salient than it is now. The perception, at least, is that one’s orientation doesn’t just predict policy preferences, but also drives basic views on reality. Predictably, as the polarization becomes more extreme, there is a broad tendency for each side to dismiss the other. “They’re crazy and unhinged — is there no limit to what they’ll fall for?” are sentiments that describe what either side of the political spectrum is increasingly saying about the other. Many on social media have either purposefully or algorithmically walled themselves off from those on the other side, embracing the self-sealing bubble that technology allows.
Those in the business of legal persuasion, however, cannot afford to dismiss half the population. In addition, students of human communication need to recognize that individuals are complex, and the three-dimensional reality of the specific person tends to fight against any neat categories we might apply. In a recent LinkedIn conversation, I read attorneys and trial consultants passionately pushing back against a single-minded focus on politics when analyzing venues and juries. And I agree with that. You might feel like a partisan alignment tells you all you need to know about someone, but it only tells you a slice. At the same time, that slice can be pretty important, and the partisan divide remains important in assessing a venue and in choosing a panel of jurors. Even as political identities are partial, complex, and a product of one’s social environment, there is a strong argument for retaining their relevance when analyzing one’s legal audience, assessing a venue, or picking a jury. In addition to the many legal issues that intersect with party identity (e.g., immigration, civil rights protections, etc.), there are also some very broad differences, specifically value differences and cognitive processing differences, that can matter in every case.
The Values Difference
I have written previously about research surrounding Moral Foundations Theory, and what that has to say about the factors that tend to distinguish liberals from conservatives. Political outlooks are not solely about specific preferences for different policies but are products of distinct and organized ways of thinking, with conservatives tending to emphasize moral foundations based on group-oriented or binding values, such as in-group loyalty and respect for authority, and with liberals tending to embrace individualistic values such as care and fairness. The result is that there may be an “empathy gap” in how individuals from different areas of the ideological spectrum will respond to a specific instance. While recent research shows that this gap might be smaller than previously thought (Johnston, Ciuk & Lopez, 2025), the distinctions are still worth considering as they relate to a specific legal case.
The Information Processing Difference
In addition to foundation differences, there also appear to be differences in the ways liberals and conservatives find and use information. One recent research study (Justwan & Baumgaertner, 2025), for example, looked at the extent to which ideology influences the types of evidence people use in evaluating causal claims and in making use of expert testimony. Looking at the issue of cash bail reform, the researchers observed that more liberal respondents, as well as individuals with a greater tendency toward cognitive reflection, preferred comprehensive statistical evidence over other forms of information. While conservatives showed greater reliance on “categorical evidence” – an example or anecdote – liberal respondents relied on a broader range of sources as well as “associative evidence” that is based on an aggregate comparison. Across the board, we have a tendency to seek out information that confirms our current beliefs (confirmation bias), but the researchers note that their study contributes to an emerging picture indicating that, “political conservatives in the United States consciously limit their exposure to new information relative to their liberal peers even in contexts where confirmation bias is not at play.”
Neither difference is deterministic, of course. Like every other aspect of a jury pool, these differences reflect tendencies that won’t be evident in every example. Practically, we still need to consider the whole person and retain a hope that, in the right circumstances and with the right arguments, individuals can see past their ideological habits. However, as the tribalism of political identity becomes more salient in this country, an analysis of our audience needs to account for differences in moral foundations and information-processing practices.
For trial attorneys, this might influence the ways you talk about and frame your case. When trying a personal injury case before a “blue” panel, for example, you might focus on the values of individual care and freedom, while also emphasizing the aggregate evidence. In bringing that same case to a “red” panel, your emphasis might instead be on collective security, and the power of a single example. For both, of course, you’ll ask the jury to look beyond their assumptions, and you’ll tell a story based on the better evidence.
____________________
Other Posts on Politics in the Jury:
- Think Beyond Just Red and Blue in Politics
- Juror Polarization: As the Political Season Ends, Understand It’s Not Just a Season
- Compare the City and Country Juror
____________________
Johnston, C. D., Ciuk, D. J., & Lopez, J. (2025). Competing moral minds? Estimating moral disagreement in American politics. Political Psychology.
Justwan, F., & Baumgaertner, B. (2025). The effects of ideology and cognitive reflection on evidence gathering behavior in the political domain. Plos one, 20(12), e0338088.