The evolution of truth in political discourse from fact to feeling and its implications for democracy

People's subjective conceptions of truth and honesty have undergone significant changes in recent decades. Parts of society increasingly favour the sincere expression of personal belief,however inaccurate, over verifiable facts. This trend has been accompanied by increasing norm violations by political elites which have been identified as a significant contributor to democratic backsliding. Those two trends highlight the need for a thorough examination of the nexus between norm violations and conceptions of honesty. We present a series of preregistered studies that examined the conditions under which people acquiesce to democratic norm violations and politicians’ dishonesty. We find that when participants are asked to take a perspective of honesty that emphasises sincerity over accuracy, which we call ``belief-speaking'', they are more willing to accept norm violations by politicians than if participants take a perspective that emphasizes accuracy as a criterion for honesty, which we call ``fact-speaking''. When a fictitious politician is presented as telling untruths, tolerance of norm violations is reduced compared to when the politician is presented as truthful. The findings highlight the need to develop a better understanding of how individuals interpret and respond to political leaders’ behaviours, especially within the evolving landscape of perception and the ensuing threats to democratic stability.