�鶹��Ѱ�����

Maria Kuntz: Today’s LBIdea is, personal moral values tend to drive voters more than facts. And across political parties, people are more similar than they are different.

Ethan Poskanzer is an Assistant Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at the Leeds School of Business at the �鶹��Ѱ�����. Ethan studies how organizations can select and connect people to develop innovative ideas, and is particularly interested in how the opportunity to innovate can be democratized and made more inclusive.

I'm Maria Kuntz. And Ethan, welcome to the podcast today.

Ethan Poskanzer: Thanks for having me.

Kuntz: Well, I'm looking forward to this conversation and digging into some of your new research about how voters relate to the concepts of truth and factuality. To just get us started, tell us about your research and how you got to this project.

Poskanzer: Yeah. So, my research is all about our social identities and how they affect market outcomes. So, sometimes, that can be, you know, do you see yourself as how, like, our identity as being competent in certain domains, how that affects our behavior, how sometimes our demographic characteristics, our gender, our national origin, how that affects market outcomes.

And one that I've been particularly interested in lately is how our political affiliations, which definitely, like, being a Democrat, being a Republican, really seems to affect behavior. Partisan identity, I think we're pretty clear on now, is not just a reflection of our underlying ideologies. Our identity as a partisan seems to do things in itself.

So, I have done some work on how that affects labor market outcomes, doing some more in that field, and also, how that affects voting outcomes, particularly, in how we choose to selectively apply norms to some candidates and not others.

Kuntz: We're in an election season right now. And so, this is a pretty interesting time for this research to be surfacing.

Poskanzer: Yeah. We actually started this around the 2020 election, which is a window into the pace of the social science publication process. I think we, kind of, hoped some of the issues in this paper wouldn't be as meaningful four years later, but here we are.

Kuntz:��So,��what got you started on the research? You said that it started in 2020. Tell us a little bit about what was happening then. And I saw that you did some additional data collection in 2023.

Poskanzer:��So,��the project started overall as under a family of interest of how identity as a partisan affects behavior. And specifically, around 2020, that was when… I mean, I guess it still is, but misinformation seems like a really big issue. And we want to explore why there's this was this, like, conception of misinformation is, like, “Oh, people are… they're just fooled by this. They just, they believe these statements that aren't true.” So, what we have to do is we have to put a little fact-checker on Twitter. And then people will just be like, “Oh, this is actually not true.” And then that would resolve the problem.

And that didn't really seem to be working. So, we wanted to dig in more and be like, maybe there's something deeper going on about why we see people support things that are not true, even though we have this whole ecosystem of fact-checkers. There's something more about it then them being fools.

Kuntz:��So, can you tell us a little bit about how you approach the research? Like, what did you do to get at this question of what's really happening?

Poskanzer: The method here is actually pretty simple. So, we did a series of surveys of Americans in different areas, different partisan identities. And we showed them statements, some by politicians that they liked, some by politicians that they didn't like. And we showed them statements that weren't true. We said they weren't true. And we just asked them to react to the statement.

And we saw that people knew, generally, whether they liked the politician or not, they were always aware that the statement wasn't based on evidence, that it wasn't factually correct. But they changed whether they thought it was good that somebody made the statement based on whether they liked that politician or not. You would ask them, like, “Do you think it's important that politicians make statements that are based in facts and evidence?” And if they don't like the politician, they say, “Yes, it is important that statements are based in evidence. And this is a flagrant violation of the norm of truth and facts.” But if they like the politician, they, kind of, say, “Yeah, I know it's not really based in facts, but it is true.” They're drawing a wedge between. being based in facts and being true. And they're saying that, like, “Well, I know this statement is literally not correct. It's supporting an underlying objective that I believe in.”

So, basically, one of the statements was Donald Trump talking about there's a caravan of immigrants coming to the United States, this was in, like, the late 2010s, that statement, people would say, “Yeah, I know there's not really a caravan,” but if they liked Donald Trump, they would say, “But we have too many immigrants coming.” So, while they know the statement is not based in evidence, it supports this deeper mission that they see as true. And thus, they are happy that somebody's making that statement, and they're happy to support a politician that is making a statement that is not based in fact.

Kuntz:��So, I��think in the research, you talked about the difference between true and something being based on objective evidence. This sounds like an example of that. Could you say more about what is true?

Poskanzer: Yeah. So, we turned that way,we had to dig more into this. This is not something we expected, but when we asked people, “Do you think this statement is true? And do you think this statement is based in fact?” We thought those would be pretty much in lockstep, like, those would be different ways of framing the same concept. If they don't like a politician, those things are pretty close. If they do like a politician, there's a big wedge where they'll say that something is not necessarily based in fact, but it is indeed true.

So, another example of this, and we eventually, kind of, dug into this more and got some short-answer responses from people. There was one person who really liked Joe Biden in the 2020 election. And Joe Biden made a statement that said, if you take the COVID vaccine, you cannot transmit COVID. And this person explicitly said, “Yeah, I know that's not, like, actually factual, but it is true that everybody should get vaccines. And thus, I'm happy that he made this statement, because the general concept of vaccines being good is true. So, any statement that supports that mission is true, in a sense, even if it isn't objectively in the world’s.”

Kuntz: How does that tie into this concept of factual versus moral flexibility? So, within the research, there's a conversation about factual flexibility and moral flexibility. I wonder if you could, kind of, go there and explain how these things relate.

Poskanzer: Yeah, we find there are basically two reasons why somebody would support misinformation from a politician. The first that we call factual flexibility, which is basically that they're fooled by the information. We're definitely not saying it doesn't happen. That happens for some people, for sure. Some people believe it as fact. But that's not the whole picture. Some people, even if they're aware that it's not factually true, they still want to see it in the world. And that's what we call moral flexibility. And that's because they are willing to shift their moral view on whether it's okay to say something true or not based on whether they like the thing that's being said.

So, the upshot of that is that, even if we had an ecosystem where everybody was perfectly informed – so everybody knew exactly what was true or not – we would still see people happy to put misinformation out there because they're doing it for these morally flexible reasons, not because they're fooled by it.

Kuntz: You know, there's been a lot of emphasis in the past number of elections on truth and fact. We're using fact-checkers. We're using them in real time during debates. So, what's the impact of the fact-checking? Do we need to keep doing it? What's the future of that look like?

Poskanzer: I think there's a reason for optimism and pessimism in this. So, kind of, optimistically, I think, sometimes, it seems like Democrats and Republicans live in different worlds. And if you're in one world or the other, you would look and be like, “How could these people believe these things? Like, I don't understand.” I think this actually gives us an explanation to that, where people on the other side, regardless of which side you're on, are a little more rational and aware than you might have thought. We're not actually, like, living in completely different factual realms, we just are pushing our agendas.

That being said, I think, while fact-checkers are probably useful in some way, it's not that simple. And I think, probably, both parties, everybody might have this conception of, like, “Oh, if this other person was just informed, they would see the world exactly as I do. I just need to give them the facts, and then, you know, they'll agree and my candidate will get 100% of the vote.” That turns out not to be true, that these elements reflect moral and value differences, and getting everybody on the same page is not simply just putting a fact up there and showing which candidate is more truthful or not truthful.

I actually think the fact-checker is, to an extent, at a small level, probably not to overpower its usefulness, but could even backfire, where we see some people do this as a rejection of the establishment. They reject that the establishment is telling them how to think, and the fact that they like this misinformation because it's like a rejection of the larger establishment in some way. So, I think, Twitter correcting them and being like, “Hey, this actually is wrong,” is not going to correct their desire to rebel against Twitter, big tech, and, kind of, the powers that be.

Kuntz: Or to speak and live in alignment with their values. What I'm hearing is, people are aware of the facts. They may or may not care or want to know what the facts are. They're anchored more deeply in their values and their moral beliefs and advocating for the way they want to exist in the world, the way they want the world to be, and that that's a stronger motivating force over a fact-checker saying, “This is incorrect.”

Poskanzer: Yeah, that's, I think, the larger idea. And there also could even be, like, a backlash to the fact-checker where, I think, if we think of news organizations, every TV channel has a political lean right now. And if you are watching the TV news channel that you disagree with and they were like, “Hey, fact-checker actually says this wasn't true,” you'd be like, “Not only do I not care that you said that because I already knew it wasn't true. Actually, the whole point is that I'm against you, and now I even more want to, you know, put this information out there because you're telling me not to.” So, I think it's just… it's a more complicated picture than a fact-checker can resolve.

Kuntz: It sounds like indignation, like, such a deep rift. What I'm hearing is it doesn't seem like the fact-checkers have the impact that maybe was hoped for when they really came onto the public stage widely used now.

Poskanzer: Yeah, I think it's a well-intentioned idea that probably has had some benefit, but it's certainly not a panacea. They've been out for a long time, and the political environment hasn't really changed.

Kuntz:��So, what's the takeaway for people hearing this research? What can we hope to see or understand, or how can we take this information with us as we're in an election cycle?

Poskanzer: I think there are two things. I think one is to see people on the other side more as strategic actors in the same way that you yourself are. They're not living in different worlds. They're taking strategic actions that, statistically, people in your party do as well. And I think that could be useful in understanding.

The other element is that, I don't think there is, like, a simple top-down solution from an authority for this problem. Like, I don't necessarily think there's something the government can do or a big tech company can do to just, like, address this in the ecosystem. I think this is something that could be addressed by the people and by the voters.

Basically, we see that politicians are not really penalized for saying things that aren't true. And politicians generally are going to do what gets them votes. So, to an extent that we want to see this stop, the voters have to hold politicians that do this accountable and not vote for them. So, something that I try and do now is I try and when I get frustrated about something that I see a politician I dislike do or say, I try to look in my own house. And I now try and seek out politicians that, if they were doing this with an issue that I generally support, facts and evidence are important. I think they're useful value for society. I'm not going to say that everybody should feel them. But given that they're important to me, I try and seek out and support candidates that, which is not always easy to find, live up to those values versus just those that have a political agenda that I agree with.

Kuntz:��So, a takeaway that I'm hearing is that, really, across political parties, people are more similar than they are different and that people can take the facts and understand them and they can still advocate, like you said, strategically for a position or a belief that they want to uphold in advance.

So, it's not that people are ignorant or they don't understand that something is incorrect or not factual, which I think has been, sort of, within the national rhetoric, like you were alluding to earlier.��

Poskanzer: Generally, we see this pattern with both parties. It's not fully equivalent, but everybody does this. So, it's pretty universal. To be clear, you can find, it was actually easier than we thought to find statements that aren't true by politicians across the board. It's discouraging. Donald Trump remains in his own category. He is, by far, the most prolific at this. But it's not a dynamic that's unique to him. And we've done it with a lot of politicians. Obviously, he was an important motivator for this.

Yeah, I do think there is this temptation to just think, like, everybody on their side is, like, so naive, and they're so, you know, even, like, stupid. How could they not think this way? Like, how could they be fooled by this? And I actually think we are a little more alike than different in that where people are, kind of, like, taking in information, using it for their own strategic goals, which is, I think, is useful to humanize the other sides of why they're doing things.

I'm not saying that's necessarily, like, a good behavior. Like, I don't think that's something we should do. But it's at least, like, not the feeling of, like, these people on the other side are, like, aliens. Like, “I don't understand what they're even doing.” Because everybody's, kind of, exhibiting similar tactics. I think if I have an upshot of this paper is, like, people just have different value sets. So, it's not like just telling somebody information is going to make them see the world how you do.

Kuntz: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me, based on this conversation and, you know, values and culture and morals are just very, I think, deeply seated in the human experience. They don't change overnight. They don't change from reading a news article or from seeing a debate.

Poskanzer: Yeah, even less than that, one line on Twitter.

Kuntz: One line, yeah, one line on Twitter. Definitely not changing someone's lifetime experience. Do you have any takeaways or ways that you see this impacting the, the election cycle we're in right now?

Poskanzer: I think we're still in this world. You know, I think I'm a bit old. I haven't seen that many elections. So, I can't say whether this is a universal feature of American elections. But I don't think the political environment has changed much since we did this study around the 2020 election.

Kuntz: Do you have any advice for how people or organizations could take this knowledge? Like, our listeners. You know, what's your hope that people see this research? And what's the takeaway?

Poskanzer: I think the political environment would be better–this is going to sound simple, but I hadn't… it wasn't really clear to me–the political environment, it would be better if we tried to support candidates who we thought would conduct themselves in a way that was conducive to the American political system that we want to see, which I would say, frankly, is not that easy because I think there's always shades of these behaviors going on. But it's a new variable in my who-am-I-going-to-support equation.

Kuntz:��So,��it sounds like there's an opportunity for anyone listening to really do some self-reflection and thinking about, “How do I fit into this narrative? You know, are these the behaviors I'm doing?” And how, maybe, does that influence the way we think about and interact with peers, colleagues, neighbors who may think like us or may think very differently.

Poskanzer: Yeah, neighbors and social connections, for sure. But I think, probably, most importantly, as voters. I think, kind of, the point of a democracy is that politicians are going to do what gets them votes. So, we're going to get the things that we have demand for in the world.

And so, if you say that, hey, there's too much distrust in politics and there's too much misinformation in politics, you probably shouldn't vote for a candidate to do that because that's going to keep happening. Because I think this is a case where the politicians do what is rewarded by the voters. So, we have the power to, kind of, create a political environment.

I think one upshot of that, this study, is that a lot of people are actually, kind of, comfortable with a political environment that's not based in facts. That's not my view of what I hope we have, moving forward. I guess that's a different thought, is that the assumption that everybody wants the world to be based in facts may not actually be an accurate assumption.

Kuntz: That's a, I guess, that's a little bit of the pessimistic, but realistic side of this, that, it's working for people and they feel like it's working. Why would they change? If they are also, by participating as voters in the political system in the way that they participate, they are rewarded with the outcomes that they seek, it's also difficult for them to change their behavior.

Poskanzer: Yeah, I think that's fair. Or, not even, like, they want to change it. They might be, like, winning this election, this political point is worth a political environment. We see a lot of people on both sides say that, like, winning the election is actually more important than having a political environment based on evidence.

Kuntz: Earlier in the conversation, you said there was a reason for pessimism and optimism. And I just wanted to see if there's anything that you want to add that we haven't talked about, thoughts that you think are really important for people to know.

Poskanzer: I think one thing that's interesting is that, a lot of people will, like, say this explicitly, that they know they're doing this. They'll say like… we had a lot of responses where people are like, “I know that that's… like, I obviously know that that's not true, but I still love that he or she said it, because I think it's an important point for somebody to make.” So, we're not, like, really, like, reading the tea leaves too much in this. It's something that a lot of people will just will come right out and say.

Kuntz: All right. Well, Ethan, thank you so much for the conversation today. It's really been great getting a chance to speak with you. And looking forward to, you know, interaction and feedback from our listeners. And hopefully, they'll have questions for us. And maybe, we'll, we'll see what conversation it sparks as people hear this podcast.

Poskanzer: Yeah, that sounds good. Thanks for having me on.

Kuntz: My pleasure.��

Thank you again for listening to Leeds Business Insights. Make sure you’re one of the first to hear every episode by subscribing to the show, wherever you dig your podcasts.

Leeds Business Insights Podcast is a production of the Leeds School of Business and is produced by University FM. We'll see you next time.��