Study reveals partisan divide in perceptions of Ford-Kavanaugh hearings

A newly-published study in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin provides insight into how Democrats and Republicans viewed the 2018 Senate hearings on sexual assault allegations against then-Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University, faced off several years ago with testimony that riveted the nation. Following the fiery testimony, Kavanugh was elevated to Justice of the Supreme Court.

In “They Saw a Hearing: Democrats’ and Republicans’ Perceptions of and Responses to the Ford-Kavanaugh Hearings,” UC Irvine researchers found that:

• Although they watched the same content, Democrats and Republicans focused on different aspects of the hearings that aligned with their party's position.
• Republicans were more likely to question the credibility and timing of Blasey Ford’s allegations.
• Democrats emphasized Kavanaugh’s emotional testimony and alleged false statements.
  Republicans reported lower levels of acute stress related to the hearings compared to Democrats.
• Individuals who wrote more about Republican-aligned topics also reported lower stress levels.

The study analyzed open-ended responses from a national sample of more than 2,300 U.S. adults collected in the days following the hearings. Using topic modeling, the researchers identified 13 distinct topics that emerged in participants' written responses.

“The hearings provided a unique, real-time opportunity to examine how Americans across the political divide responded to the same content at the same time. In fact, on average participants reported being exposed to almost eight hours of news coverage of the hearings per day from a combination of media sources, and yet they ‘saw’ a very different hearing,” note the study’s authors Roxane Cohen Silver, distinguished professor of psychological science, medicine and public health; Emma L. Grisham (’22 UC Irvine Ph.D. psychological science), postdoctoral associate at Duke University; Pasha Dashtgard (’22 UC Irvine Ph.D. psychological science), research director at American University’s Polarization and Extremism Research Innovation Lab; Daniel P. Relihan, UC Irvine postdoctoral scholar; and E. Alison Holman, UC Irvine professor of nursing and psychological science.

“This partisan divide in both perceptions and stress levels highlights the depth of political polarization in the U.S.,” they say.

The researchers point out that understanding divergent partisan narratives is crucial for addressing political divisions and finding common ground on contentious issues.

Their findings contribute to understanding how partisanship shapes perception and emotional responses to political events, and suggest the need for further research on: 

• factors that reinforce partisan perceptions (such as motivated perception and media’s role in shaping these perceptions); and
• the link between partisan perceptions and mental health outcomes in various contexts
• evolution of partisan perceptions over time

The study’s broader impacts include helping inform efforts to combat political polarization, leading to interventions designed to address psychological maladjustment following politicized events.

“During a period of political polarization that has only intensified in the years since the confirmation hearing of Justice Kavanaugh, our results make clear the importance of understanding partisan differences in perception and their potential consequences for mental health and political discourse,” Silver says. “Our findings also highlight how political partisanship and other social identities shape how individuals process and respond to information about their social environments, particularly what they see in the media.”