We’ve explored in the framework of Experimental Philosophy how our judgements and political ideas as fair or unfair tend to be biased by the opinions of prestigious figures. In the first study, subjects were randomly assigned to two groups, and they were asked to put a score of agreement (1-10) to several statements. In one group (“anonymous condition”) subjects didn’t know the author of the statement, while in the other group (“author condition”) the statement was attributed to a prestigious person. We’ve found that the statements attributed to prestigious persons received higher scores than the anonymous statements. In the second study, a similar procedure was employed, and we’ve found that subjects assigned lower scores to the statements that were attributed to politicians that they were unwilling to vote. In the third study, we’ve explored people’s opinions about two controversial events in Argentina that were interpreted in different ways by politicians of the governing party and of the opposition party, and we’ve found that most subjects agreed with the views adopted by their preferred party, even if they had little to do with politics. In the fourth study, subjects were randomly assigned to two groups (one group received previous information about the bias, while the other group didn’t receive that information), and we’ve found that when people were aware of this “author’s bias”, its influence decreased. The implications of this bias in relation to people’s judgements about justice will be analyzed.