IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0259416.html

How political partisanship can shape memories and perceptions of identical protest events

Author

Listed:
  • Eden Hennessey
  • Matthew Feinberg
  • Anne E Wilson

Abstract

It is well-recognized that increasingly polarized American partisans subscribe to sharply diverging worldviews. Can partisanship influence Americans to view the world around them differently from one another? In the current research, we explored partisans’ recollections of objective events that occurred during identical footage of a real protest. All participants viewed the same 87-second compilation of footage from a Women’s March protest. Trump supporters (vs. others) recalled seeing a greater number of negative protest tactics and events (e.g., breaking windows, burning things), even though many of these events did not occur. False perceptions among Trump supporters, in turn, predicted beliefs that the protesters’ tactics were extreme, ultimately accounting for greater opposition to the movement and its cause. Our findings point to the possibility of a feedback loop wherein partisanship underlies different perceptions of the exact same politically relevant event, which in turn may allow observers to cling more tightly to their original partisan stance.

Suggested Citation

  • Eden Hennessey & Matthew Feinberg & Anne E Wilson, 2021. "How political partisanship can shape memories and perceptions of identical protest events," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-13, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0259416
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259416
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0259416
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0259416&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0259416?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    2. Druckman, James N. & Peterson, Erik & Slothuus, Rune, 2013. "How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(1), pages 57-79, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joel Lansing Reed, 2026. "Utility and Democracy in Political Campaign Advertising: Toward a Rule-Utilitarian Ethic for Political Marketing and the Ethics of Meddling in the Other Party’s Primary," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 203(3), pages 611-630, January.
    2. Barron, Kai & Becker, Anna & Huck, Steffen, 2025. "Motivated political reasoning: On the emergence of belief-value constellations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    3. Ben M. Tappin & Adam J. Berinsky & David G. Rand, 2023. "Partisans’ receptivity to persuasive messaging is undiminished by countervailing party leader cues," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(4), pages 568-582, April.
    4. Dieter Dekeyser & Henk Roose, 2022. "Polarizing policy opinions with conflict framed information: activating negative views of political parties in a multi-party system," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1121-1138, June.
    5. Toby Bolsen & James N. Druckman & Fay Lomax Cook, 2015. "Citizens’, Scientists’, and Policy Advisors’ Beliefs about Global Warming," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 271-295, March.
    6. Nadav G Shelef & Yael Zeira, 2023. "International recognition and support for violence among nonpartisans," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 60(4), pages 588-603, July.
    7. Erika Franklin Fowler & Sarah E. Gollust, 2015. "The Content and Effect of Politicized Health Controversies," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 155-171, March.
    8. Young Hou & Christopher Poliquin, 2025. "CEO Activism and Political Mobilization," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 200(2), pages 269-285, August.
    9. Roberto Pannico, 2017. "Is the European Union too complicated? Citizens’ lack of information and party cue effectiveness," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(3), pages 424-446, September.
    10. Michael Nicholas Stagnaro & Eran Amsalem, 2025. "Factual knowledge can reduce attitude polarization," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-10, December.
    11. Monika Pompeo & Nina Serdarevic, 2021. "Is information enough? The case of Republicans and climate change," Discussion Papers 2021-08, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    12. Nikoleta Yordanova & Mariyana Angelova & Roni Lehrer & Moritz Osnabrügge & Sander Renes, 2020. "Swaying citizen support for EU membership: Evidence from a survey experiment of German voters," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 429-450, September.
    13. Clem Brooks & Elijah Harter, 2021. "Redistribution Preferences, Inequality Information, and Partisan Motivated Reasoning in the United States," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, June.
    14. Marco Bertoni & Paolo Falco & Luigi Guiso & Tullio Jappelli & Roberto Nisticò, 2026. "Scientific Evidence and Belief Updating in Polarized Media Environments," CSEF Working Papers 776, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    15. Christenson, Dino P. & Goldfarb, Jillian L. & Kriner, Douglas L., 2017. "Costs, benefits, and the malleability of public support for “Fracking”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 407-417.
    16. Davide Morisi, 2014. "Shaping voting intentions: An experimental study on the role of information in the Scottish independence referendum," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers p0403, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    17. Guglielmo Briscese & Maddalena Grignani & Stephen Stapleton, 2022. "Crises and Political Polarization: Towards a Better Understanding of the Timing and Impact of Shocks and Media," Papers 2202.12339, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2023.
    18. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    19. Mochon, Daniel & Schwartz, Janet, 2024. "The confrontation effect: When users engage more with ideology-inconsistent content online," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    20. Kim, Sumin & He, Hongwei, 2025. "The impact of brand activism on consumer behaviors: Examining the contrasting roles of admiration and anger," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0259416. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.