Brendan Nyhan

  • What we know about political misperceptions

    In the wake of the publication of a Pew poll showing an increase in the false belief that Barack Obama is a Muslim, misperceptions have reached a new level of prominence in the national discourse, including a mention of the Muslim myth on Newsweek’s cover. In addition, MIT political scientist Adam Berinsky released some new public opinion data on the topic Monday, so it seems like a good time to review what we do — and don’t — know about misperceptions.

    Belief in the Muslim myth has increased

    As I noted at the time, the Pew poll found that the proportion of the public identifying Obama as Muslim increased from 11% in March 2009 to 18% in August 2010 and the proportion who didn’t know his religion increased from 34% to 43%. This shift was corroborated by a subsequent Newsweek poll using somewhat different wording (PDF), which found that the proportion of the public saying Obama is Muslim had increased from 13% in June 2008 to 24% in late August 2010. (Time similarly found that 24% of Americans think Obama is Muslim, but no previous survey is available for comparison.)

    Americans hold several false beliefs about Obama

    In addition to the Muslim myth, polls have shown that a substantial fraction of the public believes Obama was not born in this country. Most recently, CNN found that 27% of Americans think Obama was “probably” or “definitely” born in another country (Berinsky similarly found in July that 27% said Obama was not born in this country.) The Newsweek poll mentioned above also found that 31% of Americans said the allegation that Obama “sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world” is “definitely” or “probably” true.

    False beliefs about Obama are concentrated among Republicans

    Pew found that the proportion of Republicans saying Obama is Muslim increased from 17% in March 2009 to 31% in August 2010 and the proportion who don’t know increased from 28% to 39%. Similarly, CNN’s poll showed that 41% of Republicans think Obama was “probably” or “definitely” not born here, a figure that corresponds closely to Berinsky’s 46-47% (based on his bar chart). Newsweek also found that 52% of Republicans thought that the claim that Obama wanted to impose Islamic law was “definitely” or “probably” true. These figures are consistent with other polls showing differences by party in politically salient misperceptions (e.g., Iraq having WMD before the U.S. invasion). It’s important to note that misperceptions are not confined to Republicans. Democrats, for instance, were far more likely than independents or Republicans to endorse the claim that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in a 2006 Scripps poll, a 2009 PPP poll, and Berinsky’s 2010 poll.

    These large partisan differences in misperceptions appear to be the result of people’s bias toward factual claims that reinforce their partisan or ideological views (selective acceptance). This pattern of motivated reasoning — plus possible biases in the information to which people are exposed (selective exposure) — appears to result in large partisan differentials in misperceptions along partisan or ideological lines (see my research here and here for more).

    Misperceptions are not simply a function of ignorance

    As Berinsky and many others have found, people who know more about politics (as measured by the questions political scientists typically use to measure political knowledge) tend to be less likely to hold false beliefs. However, that doesn’t mean that the problem is simple ignorance. A better approach is to distinguish between ignorance (when you know you don’t know the truth) and misinformation (when you falsely believe you know the truth). Politically salient misperceptions typically fall into the latter category, which is why they are so pernicious. For instance, I found that Republicans who believed they were knowledgeable about the Clinton and Obama health care plans were more likely to endorse false claims about them (Berinsky misstates my finding on this point).

    In addition, elites often appear to play an important role in spreading false claims ranging from “death panels” to the Muslim myth and Obama supporting Islamic law. For this process to operate, partisans must be exposed to the message from elites, understand it, and integrate it into their belief system, which is not consistent with a simple story of ignorance. GW political scientist John Sides has provided evidence that is consistent with this account, showing that the persistence of the Obama Muslim myth increased more during Obama’s presidency among Republicans with higher levels of education:

    Sides

    As TNR’s Jon Chait notes, Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels similarly found that more knowledgeable partisans were more likely to develop false beliefs of economic performance that was consistent with their political views:

    Voters’ perceptions may be seriously skewed by partisan biases. For example, in a 1988 survey a majority of respondents who described themselves as strong Democrats said that inflation had “gotten worse” over the eight years of the Reagan administration; in fact, it had fallen from 13.5 percent in 1980 to 4.1 percent in 1988. Conversely, a majority of Republicans in a 1996 survey said that the federal budget deficit had increased under Bill Clinton; in fact, the deficit had shrunk from $255 billion to $22 billion. Surprisingly, misperceptions of this sort are often most prevalent among people who should know better—those who are generally well informed about politics, at least as evidenced by their answers to factual questions about political figures, issues, and textbook civics.

    The beliefs that people express aren’t fixed

    While the prevalence of these misperceptions has been repeatedly validated in national polls, it’s important to note that the exact responses people provide will vary depending on question wording, context, etc. as in any other survey. For instance, in research with Reifler and Duke undergraduates, we found (PDF) that the presence of non-white interviewers appeared to influence how participants responded to corrective information about Obama’s religion. Likewise, a study (PDF) recently published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology found that McCain supporters were more likely to accept the claim that Obama is Muslim when their racial identity was made salient.

    Does this mean these beliefs aren’t “real”? It’s hard to know what that claim means. All survey responses are to a certain extent an artifact of the context in which they are solicited — there is no way to measure what someone “really thinks.” However, it’s possible that people are expressing an ideological or partisan view as much as they are making a factual claim about the world. The strongest claim along these lines comes from Reason’s Julian Sanchez, who suggests that misperceptions like the claim that Obama was not born in the U.S. are best conceptualized as “symbolic beliefs” rather than statements of what people believe to be literally true — an argument that was subsequently endorsed by New York Times columnist Ross Douthat and ABC News polling consultant Gary Langer. Determining to what extent these beliefs are “symbolic” rather than literal is an important question for future research.

    Update 9/16 1:26 PM: See John Sides for more on recent research into partisan bias in factual beliefs about politics.

    [Cross-posted to Pollster.com and Huffington Post]

  • Fred Barnes: Hack (a recurring series)

    Fred Barnes, September 2010 (via Jon Chait):

    President Obama has fallen into the John Boehner trap. By attacking Boehner last week—emphatically, repeatedly, and by name—the president made himself look desperate. And by treating Boehner as practically an equal, Obama elevated him…

    A word comes to mind about the Boehner gambit—unpresidential. Karl Rove, President Bush’s political adviser, offered four words—“nutty, demeaning, useless, ill-conceived.” So far as I know, a premeditated assault by a president on the leader of the opposition (minority) party in the House is unprecedented. Would Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, or any other president even have considered such a tactic? I suspect not.

    Fred Barnes, December 2001:

    For a month now, Republicans have gone after Daschle, charging him with obstructionism. The attacks started with conservative groups and Republicans in Congress. More recently, White House aides Larry Lindsey and Karen Hughes and Vice President Dick Cheney have joined in. Daschle, Cheney told Tim Russert on Meet the Press, “has decided . . . to become more of an obstructionist.” Hughes told a group of Gannett reporters that Daschle has created a “void of leadership” in the Senate.

    See also this Washington Post article from May 2002 which I wrote about at the time:

    Daschle, speaking to an Associated Press reporter, said the key question for Bush is: “Why didn’t he know? If the information was made available, why was he kept in the dark? If the president of the United States doesn’t have access to this kind of information, there’s something wrong with the system.”

    Democrats angrily accused the administration of attempting to stifle political debate, pointing to comments Thursday night by Vice President Cheney and to criticism leveled by White House press secretary Ari Fleischer during his daily briefing…

    But White House communications director Dan Bartlett defended the administration’s decision to fire back at the Democrats. Charging that Democratic comments on Thursday “are exactly what our opponents, our enemies, want us to do,” he said: “We felt it required a swift response, and we felt that the vice president was the appropriate person to do it.”

    At a dinner of the Conservative Party in New York on Thursday, Cheney warned against “incendiary” rhetoric and said the chorus of criticism from the Democrats was “thoroughly irresponsible and totally unworthy of national leaders in a time of war.”

    (I suppose you could argue that Barnes means Bush himself didn’t attack Daschle or other Democratic leaders by name, but that’s a very generous parsing, especially since Bush preferred to attack straw men rather than identify his opponents. For more on Barnes, click here.)

    Update 9/14 9:44 PM: As Rob points out, Barnes does specify “a premeditated assault by a president on the leader of the opposition (minority) party in the House is unprecedented” (my emphasis), which I missed. I’ll concede that Barnes is not technically inconsistent, but this is a distinction without a difference — the Bush administration clearly had no problem going after a minority party leader in a chamber of Congress. Would it be less unpresidential to go after the leader of the Senate? Why even narrow the domain to the House other than to exclude Daschle?

    Update 9/15 4:52 PM: Correcting myself again, let me note that, as Barry points out in comments, Chait and I have forgotten that Daschle was Senate majority leader due to the Jim Jeffords party switch in both December 2001 and May 2002. In other words, Barnes isn’t inconsistent, just hackish.

  • Twitter roundup


    [People using RSS readers: Please open the post in your browser to see the links]

  • D. Limbaugh suggests Obama trying to destroy country

    I don’t have much to add about Dinesh D’Souza and Newt Gingrich’s factually unsupported race-baiting campaign against President Obama, but I do want to flag the latest smear against Obama’s loyalty to this country. As Media Matters points out, columnist/author David Limbaugh (Rush’s brother) suggests that Obama may be “trying intentionally to take us over the cliff” in a hilariously campy Newsmax.tv interview that looks like an Onion parody:


    Here are some choice excerpts:

    “What kind of foreigner do we have in this office, and I’m not talking the birther issue. But I am saying this guy’s attitude is that of an alien who’s not proud of this country, who goes around apologizing to the world with dismissiveness and arrogance, and says we have not comported ourselves like a good citizen.”

    “What is this grudge he has against America?”

    “How can you not think that the guy is trying intentionally to take us over the cliff? I’m not saying he is. I think he’s a combination of Mr. Magoo and Nikolai Machiavelli. I don’t know what the guy is.”

    “I don’t know that this guy recognizes any restraints on his constitutional authority.”

    I’ve added Limbaugh’s statement to my timeline of attacks on Obama’s loyalty.

  • Twitter roundup


    [People using RSS readers: Please open the post in your browser to see the links]

  • Twitter roundup

  • Here & Now and NECN interviews

    My interview with WBUR’s Here & Now about the persistence of political misperceptions aired today:

    When Facts Don’t Correct Misperceptions

    Why do some people still believe that President Obama is a Muslim, and others that President Bush banned all stem cell research, despite news reports that disprove both stories? We speak with Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at the University of Michigan who has researched the topic. He found that facts don’t change deeply held beliefs and that sometimes, in fact, being faced with a correction makes people believe even harder in the incorrect story.

    You can listen to the audio here or as a podcast on iTunes.

    I was also interviewed by New England Cable News for a story about Barney Frank’s primary opponent (a Lyndon LaRouche supporter) comparing Obama to Hitler — I first appear at about 1:35 in the segment:

  • Twitter roundup


    [Note: Keepstream is currently using Javascript so this post won’t show up in RSS feeds — please click through to the web version to read it.]

  • Twitter roundup

  • The tactical fallacy

    More and more pundits are jumping on the Democrats/Obama-are-in-trouble-due-to-bad-messaging bandwagon (for recent examples, see here, here, here, and here). What we’re observing is a classic example of what you might call the tactical fallacy. Here’s how it works:

    1. Pundits and reporters closely observe the behavior of candidates and parties, focusing on the tactics they use rather than larger structural factors.
    2. The candidates whose tactics appear to be successful tend to win; conversely, those whose tactics appear to be unsuccessful tend to lose (and likewise with parties).
    3. The media concludes that candidates won or lost because of their tactical choices.

    The problem is that any reasonable political tactic chosen by professionals will tend to resonate in favorable political environments and fall flat in unfavorable political environments (compare Bush in ’02 to Bush ’06, or Obama in ’08 to Obama in ’09-’10). But that doesn’t mean the candidates are succeeding or failing because of the tactics they are using. While strategy certainly can matter on the margin in individual races, aggregate congressional and presidential election outcomes are largely driven by structural factors (the state of the economy, the number of seats held by the president’s party, whether it’s a midterm or presidential election year, etc.). Tactical success often is a reflection of those structural factors rather than an independent cause.

    What advocates of the tactical view have failed to do is provide a viable counterfactual — where is the example of the president whose messaging succeeded despite a similarly poor economy? TNR’s John Judis has tried to argue that Reagan was more successful than Obama in 1981-1982 (here and here), but as I have pointed out (here and here), the 1982 election results do not suggest Republicans significantly overperformed and Reagan’s approval ratings (both on the economy and overall) were extremely similar to Obama’s at the same point in their presidencies.

    The reality is that Obama’s current standing — and the rush to blame it on tactical failures — could be predicted months ago based on structural factors. His approval ratings largely reflect a poor economy. Similarly, Democrats were likely to suffer significant losses in the House no matter what due to the number of seats they currently hold and the fact that it is a midterm election. Nonetheless, expect the tactics-are-everything crowd to be saying “I told you so” on November 3.*

    * Bonus prediction: If the economy rebounds before 2012, the media will rediscover the tactical genius of Obama and David Axelrod.

    [Cross-posted to Pollster.com and Huffington Post).