| Popis: |
Political scientists, psychologists, sociologists, and communication researchers have long wondered about the biased processing of political messages by partisan voters. One effect on democracy is the presumption that one’s ingroup politician is believable while the outgroup is deceptive. Truth-default theory (Levine, 2014b) holds that salient ingroups are most susceptible to inaccurate detection of deception. I test this. Using stimuli of a news interview in which a politician either gives all on-topic answers or goes flagrantly off-topic, I manipulate the politician’s party affiliation as Democratic or Republican. Registered voters who identify as either Democrats or Republicans (n = 618) are randomly assigned to experimental conditions. I test aspects of TDT and social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) relating to partisan favoritism toward the ingroup politician’s trustworthiness and derogation of the outgroup politician in their perception and detection of dodging. Discussion concerns the ramifications—for deception detection and political democracy—when partisan ingroups and outgroups engage in biased processing. |
