Same Facts, Different Interpretations: Partisan Motivation and Opinion on Iraq
Abstract
Scholars assume that citizens perform better when they know pertinent facts. Factual beliefs, however, become relevant for political judgments only when people interpret them. Interpretations provide opportunities for partisans to rationalize their existing opinions. Using panel studies, we examine whether and how partisans updated factual beliefs, interpretations of beliefs, and opinions about the handling of the Iraq war as real-world conditions changed. Most respondents held similar, fairly accurate beliefs about facts. But interpretations varied across partisan groups in predictable ways. In turn, interpretations, not beliefs, drove opinions. Perversely, the better informed more effectively used interpretations to buttress their existing partisan views.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the motivated reasoning account, polarization has strengthened partisans' willingness to ignore or counter-argue with credible facts that cast aspersions on their party or party leaders and to uncritically accept false information that reflects favorably on their side.
“In this motivated reasoning account, polarization has strengthened partisans' willingness to ignore or counter-argue with credible facts that cast aspersions on their party or party leaders and, conversely, to uncritically accept false information that reflects favorably on their side (Gaines et al., 2007;Shapiro and Block-Elkon, 2008;Kraft et al., 2015).”
From Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? (2019) · cites this paper as Gaines et al., 2007
Cites
Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions
Bartels, L. M. (2002) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1021226224601 · Cited by 1,468 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612451018 · Cited by 2,920 · see citing works
The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs About Politics
Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2017) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12394 · Cited by 1,183 · see citing works
Allcott, H., Boxell, L., Conway, J., Gentzkow, M., Thaler, M., & Yang, D. (2020) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104254 · Cited by 999 · see citing works
The Partisan Brain: An Identity-Based Model of Political Belief
Van Bavel, J. J., & Pereira, A. (2018) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.004 · Cited by 743 · see citing works
Weeks, B. E. (2015) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12164 · Cited by 531 · see citing works
The Global Right Wing and the Clash of World Politics
Bob, C. (2012) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139031042 · Cited by 506 · see citing works
Nisbet, E. C., Cooper, K. E., & Garrett, R. K. (2015) · The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/0002716214555474 · Cited by 437 · see citing works
Segregation by Design: Local Politics and Inequality in American Cities
Trounstine, J. (2018) · doi:10.1017/9781108555722 · Cited by 428 · see citing works
Jerit, J., & Zhao, Y. (2020) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032814 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
Do (microtargeted) deepfakes have real effects on political attitudes?
Dobber, T., Metoui, N., Trilling, D., Helberger, N., & de Vreese, C. (2021) · The International Journal of Press/Politics · doi:10.1177/1940161220944364 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
Peterson, E., & Iyengar, S. (2019) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/pmn7h · Cited by 241 · see citing works
Learning Together Slowly: Bayesian Learning about Political Facts
Hill, S. J. (2017) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/692739 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
A Culturally Sensitive Test to Evaluate Nuanced GPT Hallucination
McIntosh, T. R., Liu, T., Susnjak, T., Watters, P., Ng, A., & Halgamuge, M. N. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tai.2023.3332837 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
Affective polarization and misinformation belief
Jenke, L. (2024) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-022-09851-w · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Partisan bias and citizen satisfaction, confidence, and trust in the U.S. Federal Government
Morgeson III, F. V., Sharma, P. N., Sharma, U., & Hult, G. T. M. (2022) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2021.1945667 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Peyton, B., & Verkuilen, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- City University of New York (US)
- Venue
- The Journal of Politics
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2007-11
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 957-974
- ISSN
- 0022-3816 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2508
- OpenAlex
- W1971470082
- Cited by
- 683
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 29 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 90 · 2018: 95 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 25
- FWCI
- 53.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Politics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Keywords
- factual beliefs, opinion change, Iraq War, information use, public opinion, belief updating
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
