(Credit: Christopher Kimball Photo/Shutterstock)
LINKOPING, Sweden — Do Republicans and Democrats have different tastes in chocolate? A new study finds our sweet tooth may lean to the left or right just like the rest of our politically polarized bodies.
Imagine standing in the candy aisle, reaching for your favorite chocolate bar, when suddenly you hesitate. You start to think, “What if choosing that brand makes me look like I’m siding with the political party I can’t stand?” Well, it turns out that’s exactly the kind of bizarre mental calculation we might be making without even realizing it.
The provocative new study by researchers from Linköping University in Sweden reveals that political tribalism runs so deep, it can dramatically influence our choices of seemingly neutral products — even something as innocuous as chocolate.
Led by Arvid Erlandsson and published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, the researchers conducted four intriguing experiments that exposed a surprising psychological quirk: people tend to deliberately avoid products associated with political groups they dislike.
“It’s less about you associating with what your own side likes and more about avoiding what’s liked by the opposing side,” Erlandsson explains in a university release.
Remember the buzz in 2015 when US Weekly revealed that Donald Trump’s favorite ice cream flavor was cherry vanilla? This seemingly trivial tidbit serves as the perfect example of what researchers call “indirect political distancing” – the tendency to develop aversions to products, brands, or items that become associated with opposing political figures or groups, even when those associations are completely arbitrary.
In the first study, researchers showed 638 participants photos of various clothing items and asked them to rate how attractive they found each piece. The catch? Some of the clothes were shown being worn by politicians from different Swedish political parties. When participants learned that a piece of clothing was worn by a politician from their least-favorite party, their ratings of that identical item dropped significantly. Conversely, clothes worn by politicians they supported were rated as more attractive.
The second study moved from fashion to food, specifically focusing on chocolate bars. More than 800 participants rated various chocolates, then learned about the chocolate preferences of different political party supporters. True to form, when people discovered that supporters of their opposed political party loved a particular chocolate, they suddenly found that chocolate less appealing. This effect emerged even though the political association was completely arbitrary and had nothing to do with the actual taste or quality of the chocolate.
The third study took things a step further by examining whether these biases would affect real financial decisions. In all, 1,239 participants were given the opportunity to allocate actual money to different charitable organizations. When they learned that supporters of their opposed political party preferred certain charities, they became less likely to donate to those organizations – even when the charities’ missions aligned with their own values.
Perhaps most revealing was the final experiment involving 1,295 participants. When people made choices while being watched by others who share their political views, their tendency to avoid “enemy” products intensified. This suggests people are even more likely to reject products associated with their political opponents when they think their in-group is watching.
“From a social perspective, it can unfortunately be rational to distance ourselves from these neutral things, but this contributes to a more polarized society,” Erlandsson warns.
What makes these findings so remarkable is that they demonstrate how political polarization seeps into aspects of life that have absolutely nothing to do with politics. We’re not talking about avoiding a restaurant because its owner actively campaigns for an opposing candidate – that at least has some logical basis. Instead, this research shows that people will start disliking a restaurant simply because they learned that a politician they oppose once ate there and enjoyed the burger.
The effect appears to be stronger in the negative direction – people are more motivated to avoid things associated with their political opponents than they are to embrace things associated with their political allies. It’s as if the mere touch of our political adversaries has the power to “contaminate” otherwise neutral objects, making them somehow less desirable through guilt by association.
The researchers believe this behavior stems from an unconscious desire to maintain a consistent self-image. What participants didn’t know was that in the initial assessments, everyone — regardless of political affiliation — actually liked the same products.
Erlandsson offers a simple antidote to this tribalistic thinking — awareness.
“Knowing about it might make you think twice, instead of just going on a gut feeling,” the researcher concludes.
Perhaps it’s time to ask ourselves: in a world where even ice cream flavors can become politically charged, have we taken political tribalism too far? After all, a good chocolate bar should taste just as sweet, regardless of who else happens to enjoy it.
Paper Summary
Methodology
The study explored how people’s preferences for neutral items like clothes, chocolates, and charities change when these items are associated with political groups. The research consisted of four experiments conducted in Sweden with large and representative samples. Participants were first asked to rate these products without any political context. Later, the same products were linked to either their most-liked or least-liked political parties.
Researchers used randomized designs, where participants were assigned to conditions that introduced partisan associations. For example, participants were shown photos of politicians wearing clothes or given information about political groups’ preferences for certain chocolates or charities. Responses were recorded before and after the partisan associations were revealed, measuring changes in their evaluations.
Key Results
The study found that people liked products less when they were linked to political groups they disliked, such as a charity preferred by their least-liked party. On the other hand, linking a product to a preferred political group had mixed results. For example, people rated clothes or chocolates liked by their favored party slightly higher but not as consistently as they avoided products liked by the opposing party. Interestingly, the study also revealed that when people thought others were watching their choices, they were even more likely to avoid products tied to political opponents.
Study Limitations
This study focused on Swedish participants, who might have different political dynamics compared to other countries, especially those with a two-party system like the United States. The timing of one experiment coincided with significant global events, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which might have influenced participant attitudes. Furthermore, the products tested (clothes, chocolates, and charities) may not fully represent all types of consumer goods. The results might differ if tested with more identity-relevant products, like sports teams or luxury items.
Discussion & Takeaways
The research highlights a subtle but powerful way that political divisions influence everyday life. Even neutral items, like a jacket or chocolate bar, can feel less appealing if they’re tied to a disliked political group. This behavior, called political distancing, is driven by a need for consistency and identity signaling. People avoid these items to align their choices with their social or political identity, particularly when others are watching.
However, the tendency to embrace products liked by one’s own political group is less pronounced. This shows that negative feelings toward opponents play a stronger role than positive feelings toward allies in shaping such choices.
Funding & Disclosures
This research was financed by a grant from the Swedish Science Council (grant number 2022-02376). The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. All data and materials used in the study are available publicly for review, following open science practices.
I don’t care what my “enemies” like to eat. If it’s tasty chocolate, I eat it.
.
I do care when the companies support the POS candidates on the right though, I and chose accordingly against those, regardless of whether I previously liked it or not.
you are a perfect example of unreasonable intolerance – especially since most of the outrageous policies that are hurting our country were enacted by your side! amazing!