Republicans respond to political polarization by spreading misinformation, Democrats don't

Researchers from University of California-Irvine published a new Journal of Marketing study that finds Republicans spread more misinformation than Democrats and explains the reasons behind this behavior.

The study, forthcoming in the Journal of Marketing, is titled “Political Polarization Triggers Republicans’ Misinformation Spread to Attain Ingroup Dominance” and is authored by Xiajing Zhu and Cornelia (Connie) Pechmann.

Many top Republicans, including presidential candidate Donald Trump and Senators Tim Scott (South Carolina), Marco Rubio (Florida), and Ted Cruz (Texas), refuse to accept the 2020 election results. Many other Republicans falsely assert the 2020 election was rigged and have stated they stood ready to fight if Trump was not declared the 2024 winner.

This new study explains what underlies these Republicans’ thought processes and behaviors and how the majority of news media and social media contribute to this problem.

The Lethal Combination: Polarization and Misinformation

The researchers assert that political polarization triggers Republicans, but not Democrats, to spread misinformation that is objectively false. Zhu says that “although Republicans may understand the content is very likely false, they are willing to spread it because they strongly value their party winning over the competition. Democrats do not value winning nearly as strongly. They place more value on equity and inclusion, seeing the world in a fundamentally different way than Republicans.”

In other words, whenever there is political polarization—that is, fierce competition between political parties—Republicans feel their backs are against the wall and come out swinging. They are willing to convey misinformation that is likely untrue, but not definitively false, to help their fellow Republicans win and Democrats lose. Democrats are less triggered by political polarization; they do not value their party winning over other values, so they do not respond this way.

The researchers conducted six studies that demonstrate this. The first study examines fact-checked statements in the news media and on social media by public figures over 10 years (2007–2016). The second study extends this analysis to 16 years (2007–2022). Findings indicate that when there was political polarization in the news cycle, Republicans conveyed significantly more misinformation than Democrats.

They verify these findings in three online studies that surveyed U.S. adults who identified as either Republican or Democrat. Participants were placed in politically polarized situations—for instance, Senate Republican and Democratic leaders arguing. They then saw misinformation from current social media. For example, Republicans saw news such as “Democratic Senators are secretly pro-Russia” and “Democratic Senators are purposely manipulating gas prices,” while Democrats saw news such as “Republican Senators are secretly pro-Russia” and “Republican Senators are purposely manipulating gas prices.” In politically polarized situations, Republicans were significantly more willing to convey misinformation than Democrats to gain an advantage over the opposition party.

The last study examines the speeches of U.S. presidents over 94 years (1929–2023) spanning the 31^st president Herbert Hoover to the 46^th president Joseph Biden. The researchers find that in political polarized situations, such as during election periods, Republican presidents talked more about “we” and “us” than Democratic presidents, indicating they were more focused on their own party and partisanship.

Pechmann summarizes by saying, “Republicans react to political polarization by putting out partisan misinformation. This can have a deleterious effect on the state of democratic institutions and processes.” For instance, in the year following the 2020 U.S. presidential election and accompanying misinformation about election fraud, 400 restrictive voting bills were introduced in 47 U.S. state legislatures. Additionally, 14 states passed restrictive voting bills that, for instance, shortened the mail-in voting period, eliminated election day registration, and/or reduced ballot drop box access. These changes have decreased voter turnout and engagement, particularly among minority voters.

Lessons for Marketers, Media Organizations, and Policymakers

What should be done to reduce the harmful effects of misinformation? The study offers ideas that could have a positive effect:

• Dampen political polarization in news media and social media. However, marketplace incentives may be insurmountable because polarization increases audience size, engagement, and political donations.

• Invest more money in fact checking, which is now a task performed by volunteer organizations on shoestring budgets. Fact-checkers could strategically allocate more resources when situations are politically polarized (e.g., during elections). They could also integrate fact checks with the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank’s polarization index to better understand and predict when misinformation is likely to spike.

• There are 18 U.S. states that mandate media literacy education to teach students how to detect misinformation in the media. The remaining U.S. states should follow their lead.

Overall, we should strive to create a new generation of citizenry that will not be swayed by objectively false political misinformation to protect trust, truth, and democracy.

Full article and author contact information available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429241264997

About the Journal of Marketing 

The Journal of Marketing develops and disseminates knowledge about real-world marketing questions useful to scholars, educators, managers, policy makers, consumers, and other societal stakeholders around the world. Published by the American Marketing Association since its founding in 1936, JM has played a significant role in shaping the content and boundaries of the marketing discipline. Shrihari (Hari) Sridhar (Joe Foster ’56 Chair in Business Leadership, Professor of Marketing at Mays Business School, Texas A&M University) serves as the current Editor in Chief. https://www.ama.org/jm

About the American Marketing Association (AMA)

As the leading global professional marketing association, the AMA is the essential community for marketers. From students and practitioners to executives and academics, we aim to elevate the profession, deepen knowledge, and make a lasting impact. The AMA is home to five premier scholarly journals including: Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Journal of International Marketing, and Journal of Interactive Marketing. Our industry-leading training events and conferences define future forward practices, while our professional development and PCM® professional certification advance knowledge. With 70 chapters and a presence on 350 college campuses across North America, the AMA fosters a vibrant community of marketers. The association’s philanthropic arm, the AMA’s Foundation, is inspiring a more diverse industry and ensuring marketing research impacts public good. 

AMA views marketing as the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large. You can learn more about AMA’s learning programs and certifications, conferences and events, and scholarly journals at AMA.org.