Have you ever wondered if people really believe the controversial statements they make, especially in today’s politically charged environment? A recent study sheds light on this question, revealing that political affiliation may influence how people respond to factual questions, not necessarily reflecting their true beliefs but rather their allegiance to a political group.
This phenomenon, known as “expressive responding,” was the focus of a recent replication study aimed at understanding how partisanship affects perceptions of truth in the context of politically polarizing issues.
Expressive responding occurs when individuals declare beliefs not because they genuinely hold them, but to signal allegiance to their social or political group. This behavior is particularly notable in politically charged environments where factual accuracy might take a back seat to group loyalty.
Researchers embarked on this study to explore the depths of expressive responding, motivated by the stark divide in belief reports on factual matters among Americans. Their aim? To replicate and extend findings from a pivotal 2018 study that suggested people might choose incorrect answers on purpose if it meant showing support for their political “team.”
For their new study, the researchers recruited participants through Lucid, an online platform that uses quota sampling to ensure a representative sample in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, and geographic region. The study ran from October 23 to October 29, 2019, ultimately gathering complete data from 1,018 participants.
The study sought to compare responses from Republicans and Democrats regarding which of two photos showed larger crowds: one from Donald Trump’s 2017 inauguration and another from Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration.
This choice of subject matter was no accident. It stems from a controversial claim by the White House that Trump’s inauguration drew the largest audience ever, a claim easily disproven by available evidence showing Obama’s inauguration attracted significantly larger crowds. By asking participants to identify which photo showed more people, the researchers aimed to test whether political partisanship would lead to expressive responding.
The study’s findings confirmed the phenomenon of expressive responding among political partisans. It demonstrated that Republicans were more likely than Democrats to select the incorrect photo showing crowd sizes at presidential inaugurations, suggesting a tendency to express support for Trump even when factual evidence contradicted their choices.
“In the present study we replicated the central finding of Schaffner and Luks (2018) by showing that more Republicans than Democrats provide an incorrect response when questioned about which of two photos has more people,” the researchers wrote. “Given that the photo of Obama’s inauguration rally clearly has more people than the photo of Trump’s inauguration rally, this finding supports the hypothesis that some Republicans engaged in expressive responding by intentionally selecting the incorrect photo to show support for Trump.”
The researchers also observed a correlation between the strength of political identity and the likelihood of expressive responding. Strongly identified Republicans were more inclined to demonstrate support for Trump by choosing the incorrect photo compared to those who “Lean Republican.” On the other hand, strongly identified Democrats were more likely to select the correct photo compared to those who “Lean Democratic.”
Notably, a specific association was found between selecting the incorrect photo and endorsing the claim that “Obama is the Antichrist,” hinting at expressive responding being more prevalent for extreme and outlandish claims.
The findings are in line with a previous study, which demonstrated that despite expressing disapproval and echoing Trump’s criticisms of mail-in voting as prone to fraud, many of his supporters in Florida continued to use this voting method, misrepresenting their past and intended behaviors.
But the new study, while illuminating, is not without its limitations. Its focus primarily on Republicans means it couldn’t test for expressive responding among Democrats or individuals outside the United States. Future research could benefit from larger sample sizes, a broader range of contexts for testing expressive responding, and strategies to capture potential expressive responding among Democrats and other groups.
The study, “Expressive Responding in Support of Donald Trump: An Extended Replication of Schaffner and Luks (2018)“, was authored by Robert M. Ross and Neil Levy.
