Study Reveals Voter Moral Justifications for Politicians' Misstatements

Academic Research by: Oliver Hahl

A new study shows voters justify politicians' factually inaccurate statements, especially when aligned with their personal political beliefs.

The study, conducted by researchers at the Tepper School and several other universities, is in press at 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 of organization theory, strategy, and entrepreneurship at Carnegie Mellon’s Tepper School of Business, who coauthored the study. “It seems like it's more about how statements, whether true or not, speak to a broader political agenda.”

Participants were recruited from online platforms to participate in studies and surveys. Surveys gauged reactions to false statements by politicians, including Trump, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida, President Joe Biden, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

The survey results showed that partisans often supported factually inaccurate statements, justifying them morally instead of using factual explanations. Results also indicated significant moral flexibility among both Democrats and Republicans.

The results show that voters exhibit factual flexibility, adjusting facts to fit their views. They also show moral flexibility, justifying fact-flouting to proclaim political “truths.” This suggests that political misinformation cannot be eliminated by merely distinguishing fact from fiction, as voters may prefer fact-flouting due to their moral orientations.

In most studies, Trump supporters showed considerable flexibility with the facts regarding his statements. However, one study focusing on the “big lie,” which surveyed only those who voted for Trump in 2016, proved to be an exception. Conducted in 2021, the survey explored voters’ responses to Trump’s claims that the 2020 U.S. presidential election was “rigged” or “stolen.” Participants were more likely to consider Trump’s allegations as grounded in objective evidence rather than subjective viewpoints.

Hands holding megaphones emitting sound waves, and another hand holding an ear, symbolizing communication and listening.

Compared to other topics, Trump’s allegations that the election was stolen were portrayed as factual. There is less moral flexibility with this issue, possibly because these claims were presented more as facts. However, the emphasis on factual accuracy concerning the big lie still varies based on people’s political affiliations.

Hahl’s study findings emphasize that a commitment to democratic norms cannot be taken for granted, highlighting the need for caution when addressing political misinformation. Efforts to counter voters' positive responses to misinformation should not be limited to encouraging them to simply work harder to fact-check and digest accurate information.