Pittsburgh Review

In a recent study, researchers from Carnegie Mellon University, Rice University, the University of Colorado-Boulder, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have revealed that both Republican and Democratic voters often provide moral justification for politicians' factually inaccurate statements when these align with their personal political beliefs. The study is set to be published in the American Journal of Sociology.

"What we found is that political misinformation isn't just about whether voters can tell facts from fiction," said Oliver Hahl, associate professor at Carnegie Mellon's Tepper School of Business and coauthor of the study. "It seems like it's more about how statements, whether true or not, speak to a broader political agenda."

The research involved six surveys conducted primarily during Donald Trump's presidency and one in the spring of 2023. Participants were recruited via Amazon's Cloud Research Platform and Prolific. These surveys assessed voter reactions to false statements by various politicians including Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, President Joe Biden, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Findings indicate a significant tendency among partisans to support violations of factual norms when these serve a deeper political truth. This was consistent across all surveys, showing that voters distinguish between objective evidence and what they perceive as truth based on their political affiliations.

Results also highlighted substantial moral flexibility among both Democrats and Republicans. Voters justified factually inaccurate statements in moral terms rather than relying on factual justification alone. This challenges the belief that partisan support for misinformation stems solely from laziness or bias.

A notable exception was observed in a survey conducted in 2021 regarding Trump's claims that the 2020 U.S. presidential election was rigged. Here, participants were more likely to view Trump's allegations as grounded in objective evidence rather than subjective viewpoints.

The authors acknowledge limitations such as the focus on demagogic fact-flouting by partisan politicians and non-nationally representative samples. "Our findings reiterate the sociological insight that commitment to democratic norms cannot be assumed," said Minjae Kim, assistant professor at Rice University's Jones Graduate School of Business and coauthor of the study.

"In particular, efforts to combat voters' positive response to misinformation cannot be limited to teaching them to simply work harder to digest accurate information (e.g., fact-checking)," he added.