Same Facts, Different Interpretations: Partisan Motivation and Opinion on Iraq

TLDR

Citizens are thought to perform better when they know facts, but factual beliefs influence political judgments only when interpreted, offering partisans a way to rationalize existing opinions. The study uses panel data to examine how partisans updated factual beliefs, interpretations, and opinions about Iraq as conditions changed. Panel studies tracked changes in factual beliefs, interpretations, and opinions about Iraq as real‑world conditions evolved. Respondents had accurate factual beliefs, but partisan differences in interpretations—rather than beliefs—shaped opinions, with better‑informed partisans using interpretations to reinforce their partisan views.

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.