As Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump lead popular uprisings from the far left and right, it becomes easy to frame the 2016 political season as a clash of extreme ideologies and a rejection of compromise. Their supporters can be easily cast as radicals – confident, righteous and unlikely to be influenced by new evidence or arguments. But while we watch how these extreme political beliefs play out in campaigns on Fox News and CNN, it’s worth asking how such extremism could cloud judgment in the jury box when new information is heard.

The Association for Psychological Science recently published research that suggests extreme political attitudes, such as those that can be revealed during voir dire, could also predict how some jurors will process the new information they hear. The study found political extremists are less likely to change their minds when provided new, conflicting information – even about nonpolitical issues. Researchers concluded extremists believed their beliefs were superior and were less likely to stray from those pre-existing beliefs.

For potential jurors with extreme attitudes, that could mean either hardheaded ideologues impervious to fresh evidence or confidently independent thinkers immune to groupthink. Either way, they should raise a red flag during voir dire.

“Importantly,” wrote Mark J. Brandt, psychological scientist and lead researcher of the study, “the results couldn’t be explained by participants’ level of education or their so-called need for ‘cognitive closure’” — the need for a definitive answer or an aversion to ambiguity. So while common sense has us gawking at the obvious contrasts of Left to Right, this new research shows how much radicals – extremists on either side – may actually think alike.

If you’re interested in discussing how we identify potential extremists in a venire, contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at 714.754.1010 or cluna@juryimpact.net.