Research study shows how Trump’s supporters are more inclined to believe and share politically favorable news, even if it’s false

A recent study conducted by researchers at Stanford University reveals a troubling trend in how political biases influence people’s ability to assess news truthfully. This “concordance-over-truth” bias demonstrates that individuals are more likely to trust and share news stories that align with their political beliefs, regardless of whether the information is accurate. The study, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, found this bias to be more pronounced among supporters of Donald Trump, although it persisted across various levels of education and reasoning abilities.

The study aimed to understand how political alignment affects belief formation and news-sharing behavior, particularly during critical events like presidential elections. Recognizing that a well-informed electorate is essential for a functioning democracy, the researchers sought to explore whether people prioritize political agreement over factual accuracy when processing news.

To gather data, the researchers recruited 2,180 participants using the online platform Lucid between January 31 and February 17, 2020. The sample was designed to reflect the U.S. population in terms of gender, age, race, ethnicity, income, education, and region, with 1,808 participants completing the study after exclusions. The participants had an average age of 48.2, with 54.3% identifying as female, 45.7% as male, and 72% as White. Racial diversity was also present, with 12.6% identifying as Black or African American, 7% as Asian, and 12.8% as Hispanic. Politically, 37.6% supported Trump, 52.3% opposed him, and 10.1% were neutral.

The study presented participants with 16 news headlines: eight related to Trump, split into positive and negative categories, and eight filler headlines unrelated to politics. The Trump-related headlines were half factual and half fabricated by the researchers, with some stories being obviously false (e.g., a claim that Trump attended a Halloween event dressed as the Pope), while others were more plausible but still false. The participants were asked to rate the truthfulness of each headline and indicate how likely they were to share it. They also answered questions about their political stance, media habits, and perceptions of political objectivity.

The findings revealed a clear “concordance-over-truth bias,” meaning that participants rated headlines that aligned with their political views as more truthful and were more likely to share those headlines. This bias was consistent across various education and reasoning levels, though it was slightly stronger among Trump supporters. More notably, the study found that participants were more resistant to sharing true news that conflicted with their political beliefs than they were to sharing fake news that supported their views.

As the researchers stated, “To a surprising degree, politics can trump truth—in the present study, with regard to a presidential incumbent during a historic election.” This suggests that, during times of heightened political tension, like the 2020 U.S. presidential election, political alignment can significantly overshadow the importance of factual accuracy in news consumption.

Further analysis identified several predictors of this bias. Participants who viewed their political side as more objective—referred to as holding an “illusion of objectivity”—were more likely to display stronger political biases in their judgment of news veracity. Additionally, one-sided media consumption further exacerbated this bias. Participants who primarily consumed media that reinforced their political beliefs showed a stronger tendency to prioritize political concordance over truth.

The study also revealed that individuals with extreme views on Trump were particularly prone to rating politically favorable news as true, regardless of its factual basis. This highlights the importance of understanding the interaction between political bias, media exposure, and misinformation in the current information environment.

The researchers concluded by emphasizing the significance of their findings, noting that “Understanding the problem of concordance-over-truth bias—its scope, severity, causes, and consequences—is essential for deciding on practical reforms and interventions.” They warned that the combination of confirmation bias, disconfirmation bias, and one-sided news exposure contributes to the creation of a “post-truth” world, where people struggle to distinguish between what feels true and what is actually true. As they put it, “A key step is to teach people to critically examine not only the news but also their own minds. Otherwise, we risk Carl Sagan’s feared vision of a future where people are ‘unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true.’”

The study, “When Politics Trumps Truth: Political Concordance Versus Veracity as a Determinant of Believing, Sharing, and Recalling the News,” was authored by Michael C. Schwalbe email the author, Katie Joseff, Samuel Woolley, and Geoffrey L. Cohen.

Image Credits - Unsplash