15 Aug People Accept Lies From Politicians They Like

MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Allison Mueller, A.B.D.
Ph.D. Program
Department of Psychology
University of Illinois at Chicago 

MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?

Response: In our study, we explored how people react to public figures who bend the truth. We predicted that people’s own moral conviction for a political issue—their strong and absolute belief that this position is right or wrong, moral or immoral—would cloud their judgments of public figures who lie for that cause. We reasoned that when a strong moral conviction is at stake, the transgressiveness of specific kinds of advocacy for the cause may be trivialized.

To test this idea, we first assessed people’s views on a political issue—in this case, whether they supported or opposed federal funding of Planned Parenthood, and the extent to which they viewed the issue as a moral imperative. They were then presented with a political monologue supporting Planned Parenthood that they believed was previously aired over public radio. After reading the monologue, they were randomly assigned to learn that the monologue was deemed true (or false) by several fact-checking organizations. We measured their reactions to hearing this news, including the extent to which they believed the speaker was justified in delivering the monologue and their judgments of the speaker’s moral character.

We found that people’s perceptions of the speaker’s transgressive advocacy were uniquely shaped by their own moral conviction for the cause. Although honesty was positively valued by all respondents, transgressive advocacy that served a shared moral (vs. nonmoral) end was more accepted, and advocacy in the service of a nonpreferred end was more condemned, regardless of its truth value. 

MedicalResearch.com: What should clinicians and patients take away from your report?

Response: A troubling and timely implication of these findings is that political figures may be able to act in corrupt ways without damaging their images (at least in the eyes of their supporters). One reason why they may be able to get away with mild truth bending, and sometimes even outrageous lies, appears to be because those lies are perceived by supporters as an acceptable and perhaps necessary means to achieve a higher moral end.

MedicalResearch.com: What recommendations do you have for future research as a result of this study?

Response: We are now interested in exploring the role of strong moral conviction in the broader context of the fake news cycle. For example, does strong moral conviction for an issue lead people to be more attracted to, more accepting of, and more likely to share fake news that bolsters the cause?

 No disclosures

MedicalResearch.com: Thank you for your contribution to the MedicalResearch.com community.

Citation:

Allison B. Mueller, Linda J. Skitka. Liars, Damned Liars, and Zealots. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2017; 194855061772027 DOI: 10.1177/1948550617720272

Note: Content is Not intended as medical advice. Please consult your health care provider regarding your specific medical condition and questions.

[wysija_form id=”5″]

Last Updated on August 15, 2017 by Marie Benz MD FAAD