Over the last decade or so, concern has grown over the tendency for
Americans to support their favorite politicians even when those
politicians share misinformation. A common assumption about the
problem is that partisan voters are apt to believe what they should
question (and vice versa). And research backs up the idea that
voters are “factually flexible,” either due to laziness or bias.
But what if factual flexibility isn't the whole story? What if a
key part of the story is that partisan voters are also “morally
flexible” — that they hold opposition politicians to strict
standards of factuality but allow their favorite politicians to
share misinformation — even socially divisive misinformation. For
morally flexible voters, such statements are permissible because
they articulate a “deeper truth” that captures their
grievances.
This is the message of a new study forthcoming in the American
Journal of Sociology, “When Truth Trumps Facts: Studies on Partisan
Moral Flexibility in American Politics,” written by Minjae Kim, SM
’17, PhD ’18, assistant professor of organizational behavior at
Rice Business (Jones), and Ezra W. Zuckerman Sivan, professor of
strategy and entrepreneurship at MIT Sloan School of
Management.
Along with other MIT Sloan alumni, Oliver Hahl, PhD ’13, from
Carnegie Mellon University Tepper School of Business, and Ethan
Poskanzer, SM ’20, PhD ’22, from University of Colorado-Boulder
Leeds School of Business, Kim and Zuckerman Sivan found that when
American voters evaluate statements made by politicians they
support, they tend to be less concerned about whether those
statements are based on objective evidence. What matters more is
the “deeper truth,” or the overarching message, the statements
express.
According to Kim, “People insist on strict factuality when it
comes to politicians they don’t favor. They don’t give the opposite
partisans the same leeway, in part because they don’t like their
message. People shift their standards as it suits their partisan
interests.”
To arrive at their findings, the researchers conducted a series
of six online surveys of American voters: five during the last two
and half years of Republican President Donald Trump’s
administration, and one in the spring of 2023, during Democratic
President Joe Biden’s administration.
Five of the surveys asked respondents to evaluate divisive,
fact-flouting statements made by Trump. Two compared responses to
similar statements by a Republican politician (either Trump or
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis) and a Democratic politician (either U.S.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. or Biden). The statements
pertained to such hot-button political issues as immigration, the
2020 Black Lives Matter protests, the COVID-19 pandemic, and
Trump’s “Big Lie” that the 2020 U.S. presidential election was
“rigged” or “stolen.”
“There is no doubt that partisans are factually flexible,” said
Zuckerman Sivan. “Supporters of a politician are much more likely
to say that one of these statements is based on objective evidence
than are opponents of that politician. But we also found consistent
evidence of partisan moral flexibility — that voters distinguish
between ‘objective evidence’ and ‘truth’ — and that when you
consider who is morally flexible, you’re better able to predict who
supports divisive misinformation than if you focus on factual
flexibility alone.”
The researchers found that voters care more about truth when
evaluating favored politicians. But they care more about facts when
evaluating disfavored ones. This effect is slightly stronger for
Republican voters, but it applies to Democrats, too.
Participants in each study were shown a divisive statement made
by a politician, along with a note that clarified that the
statement had been verified as non-factual by a third-party
fact-checking organization. For each statement, participants
indicated whether they thought the statement was based on objective
evidence or subjective impressions; whether the statement was
“true” and whether it was more important for the statement to be
based on objective evidence or “to send the right message about
American priorities.”
For example, in a survey called the “Caravan,” the researchers
showed participants a real post from Trump that was not factual —
that there were criminals and unknown Middle Easterners mixed in
“the Caravan heading to the Southern Border of the United States”
that “Mexico’s Police and Military are unable to stop.”
Across the five studies that included such statements, Trump
supporters were more likely than non-supporters to say that the
statement was based on “objective evidence,” giving an average
rating of 3.65 based on a 7-point scale. This was 0.9 points higher
than the average given by non-supporters. But while this gap was
large, the gap grew to three times larger when respondents rated
the truth of these statements. Across the five studies, Trump
supporters gave an average rating of 5.2 for truth. Non-supporters
averaged 2.2.
A similar gap was found in responses to a statement from Biden
that stated erroneously that the COVID vaccines were effective in
stopping “the spread of disease to anyone else.” In a follow-on
question, one Biden voter explained their rationale for affirming
Biden’s false statement:
In a public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic, it was
more important for President Biden to appeal to American values of
patriotism and the willingness to step up for others. Most people
are aware that while vaccinations greatly reduce the spread of
disease, there is no vaccine that can completely, utterly stop it.
However, Biden was using strong, emotional, positive language to
encourage Americans to do what was morally correct and patriotic at
that moment, and I feel that was entirely appropriate.
This emphasis on truth over facts gave the researchers’ article
its name. But the more direct indicator of partisan moral
flexibility was the preferred standard for evaluating these
statements. “In short, when the statement is by a Republican,
Democrats insist the statement should be evaluated on its
factuality whereas Republicans say that what matters is whether it
conveys an important message. And the reverse is true when the
statement is by a Democrat,” Kim said.
For instance, in the “Summer of 2020” survey, participants were
asked to respond to a post by Ocasio-Cortez. Like the Trump post,
this statement included a line that was highly misleading: “Police
brutality is now a leading cause of death for young men across the
board in the US.” Democratic respondents were much more likely than
Republicans to say that the statement should be evaluated on the
basis of whether it sends “the right message about American
priorities” than on whether it is based on “objective evidence”
(3.53 on a 7-point scale for Republicans; 2.13 for
Democrats).
“The study illustrates how both Democrats and Republicans shift
their standards to suit their interests,” Zuckerman Sivan said. “It
seems that we all do it.” Kim and Zuckerman Sivan believe it’s
important for people to recognize that moral flexibility plays a
significant part in our decisions and behaviors, because coming to
terms with that could ultimately lead to a different set of
interventions — though exactly what those interventions might be is
still unclear.
“But let’s at least get the diagnosis right before we start
talking about the treatment,” Zuckerman Sivan concluded. “Our hope
is that if people come to recognize the extent of partisan
flexibility, then we’ll be able to start making some progress from
there.”
- Moral flexibility and American voters
Casey Bayer
MIT Sloan School of Management
914.584.9095
bayerc@mit.edu