Getting facts right doesn't guarantee understanding in political debates.
This paper argues that citizens use partisan motivated reasoning even after accepting factual information. It demonstrates how people selectively attribute credit and blame for events despite agreeing on the same facts.
Data & Methods
Four randomized experiments conducted across different national contexts, including both closed-ended and open-ended questions, analyze this phenomenon. These diverse studies help avoid potential biases from any single approach.
Key Findings
- Citizens often use factual information to update their beliefs about political matters.
- Following fact acceptance, they engage in selective credit/blame attribution that aligns with partisan preferences.
- This pattern holds across various countries and question formats.
The findings suggest democratic competence assessments should consider citizens' ability to process facts without letting partisanship drive biased interpretations.
