(iPoster) Same Facts, Different Meanings: Factual Information, Interpretation, and Attitude Change

• In Event: Poster Sessions: IR Theory; Experiments; Presidents and Executive Politics; & Political Cognition, Crisis, and Conflict Attitudes
  In Poster Session: Poster Session: Political Cognition, Crisis, and Conflict Attitudes

Abstract

Electoral accountability depends on citizens’ ability to evaluate officials and respond to new information. Yet research shows people often interpret facts through partisan lenses, potentially undermining democratic responsiveness. Recent evidence suggests that individuals frequently update beliefs in response to factual or persuasive information, regardless of predispositions, and that backfire effects are rare. But does this updating influence broader attitudes through which citizens signal approval or disapproval, such as evaluations of presidential handling of the economy?

Citizens may accept uncongenial facts yet rationalize them by shifting related beliefs (e.g., selectively attributing responsibility or downplaying importance), thereby preserving prior attitudes. This study examines the downstream consequences of factual belief updating and the role of rationalization in shaping political attitudes.

Across two survey experiments, respondents are randomly assigned to factual information treatments or control groups. We then assess how factual updates affect focal beliefs, broader evaluations, and adjacent beliefs that shape the interpretation of a fact. The design tests common rationalization strategies and measures downstream attitudes across diverse performance issues and political leader misstatements, contributing to the study of when and how citizens integrate facts into political attitudes.

Author

• Martín Opertti, Duke University