Friday08 November 2024
ps-ua.com

"The end justifies the means": Researchers explain why people often choose lies over the truth.

When it comes to politics, some individuals employ various psychological tactics both in discussions and in the broader context of the country's affairs. However, a recent study by researchers contradicts the claims of many that misinformation is inherently harmful.
"Цель оправдывает средства": исследователи объяснили, почему многие выбирают ложь вместо правды.

A recent study conducted by researchers revealed that many voters are willing to support political leaders even when they acknowledge that their statements are essentially false. While society generally believes that the goal should be to empower those who speak only the truth, this scientific work demonstrated that as people divide into different camps, they gradually lose their previous benchmarks and are prepared to overlook certain false information coming from their favorites, reports The Conversation.

The research, published in the American Journal of Sociology, which analyzed responses from over 3,900 American voters between 2018 and 2023, indicated that they may consciously accept disinformation if they believe it aligns with broader "moral truths" that reflect their values or priorities. These findings challenge the common belief that disinformation persists mainly due to a lack of knowledge or gullibility among voters.

For instance, despite acknowledging that Donald Trump's claims about the theft of the 2020 election lack evidence, many of his supporters continued to endorse this idea, explains the study's author, Minje Kim, a management professor at the Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University. For them, these statements represented deeper issues, such as a perception of the political system's illegitimacy. Similarly, President Joe Biden's inaccurate claim that vaccinated individuals cannot spread COVID-19 was interpreted by some of his supporters as conveying an important public health message, despite being factually incorrect.

Surveys by researchers have shown that voters apply different standards when evaluating statements from the politicians they support versus those they oppose. Supporters tend to justify inaccuracies if they believe they reflect a broader moral truth, while voters are more critical of inaccuracies made by opposing politicians.

This phenomenon highlights the role of "moral flexibility" in shaping political judgments: voters are willing to rationalize factual inaccuracies if they believe they serve a higher purpose that justifies the means of achieving it. The study sheds light on why fact-checking alone may not be sufficient to combat disinformation. Voters often prioritize moral principles over factual accuracy, complicating efforts to ensure that public policy is based on objective truth, the authors argue.

One of the key challenges for Kim and his team moving forward is to determine how to bridge the gap between partisan groups when moral flexibility hinders agreement on basic facts. While voters from different political camps may find common ground on certain issues, political polarization often leads to legislative gridlock. The research indicates that rather than solely focusing on correcting disinformation, efforts should also be directed toward understanding the deeper moral and ideological reasons that drive voters to support falsehoods. Such understanding could be crucial for developing strategies that promote bipartisan cooperation and strengthen democratic norms.