Many voters are willing to simply accept misinformation from politicians – even in the event that they comprehend it is factually incorrect. Our researchVoters often recognize when their party's claims usually are not based on objective evidence, yet they respond positively once they consider these inaccurate statements reflect a deeper, more vital “truth.”
Our team conducted a series of online surveys with over 3,900 American voters from 2018 to 2023. These surveys were designed to acquire responses about how they evaluate policy statements made by various politicians, even in the event that they consider those statements to be factually inaccurate.
Consider former President Donald Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Even amongst his supporters, who recognized that his claims of election fraud weren’t based on objective evidencewe found that they usually tend to view these allegations as relevant to “American priorities”: for instance, they consider that the political system is illegitimate and contrary to their interests.
The same logic applies to factually incorrect statements about COVID-19 vaccinations President Joe Biden made suggesting that vaccinated people couldn’t spread the diseaseIn our polls, voters who supported the president considered the statement vital to American priorities, regardless that they acknowledged that it contained factual inaccuracies.
These questions allowed us to search out out what criteria guide voter behavior depending on who’s making which statement. Voters of each parties placed more emphasis on “moral truth” when evaluating a politician they liked. When evaluating a politician they didn’t like, nonetheless, voters relied more on strict objectivity.
Our surveys documented how voters provide such justifications for his or her partisan standard-bearers, revealing a big degree of “moral flexibility” in voters’ political judgment. I conducted this research with Oliver Hahl from Carnegie Mellon University, Ethan Poskanzer the University of Colorado and Ezra Zuckerman Sivan of MIT.
Why it can be crucial
Discussions about combating misinformation often concentrate on the necessity for higher fact-checking and education. But our discovery illustrates the deeper but missed causes behind voters' tolerance and support for factually inaccurate statements. The results suggest that misinformation survives not only due to voters' “gullibility,” but additionally due to their moral considerations about whether partisan ends justify the means.
If voters consciously decide to support misinformation since it aligns with their partisan political beliefs, then providing factual corrections is not going to be enough to guard the democratic norm that public policy is predicated on objective facts.
What will not be yet known
Our research raises critical questions on the best way to combat such moral flexibility and its consequences.
Of course, we don’t think that such moral flexibility is fundamentally fallacious. For example, as a society we are likely to think it will not be an issue to inform children that Santa Claus exists since it protects certain values - corresponding to children's innocence and imagination.
But in relation to public debate on a difficulty that ought to be based on objective evidence, moral flexibility limits the extent to which partisan groups can agree on facts, let alone what policies may be derived from them.
What happens next?
What makes people on opposite sides of the political spectrum work together once they can't agree on what’s factually right?
There are probably more areas where partisan voters agree than the “culture war” narrative suggests – and we hope to learn from them. In collaboration with Sociologist Sang Won Hanwe examine legislators who often co-sponsor bills with politicians from the opposing party.
Sociologists Daniel DellaPosta, Liam Vinegar and I also examine what contributes to the polarization of politicians when voters of various party affiliations even have a consensus. For example, a majority of Democratic and Republican voters Support for background checks for the acquisition of weapons, while draft laws on such measures commonly fail.
The Research Brief is a summary of interesting scientific papers.
image credit : theconversation.com