Bibliometric and Critical Review of the Empirical Research on Political Deception
Keywords:
Antecedents, Deception, Honesty, Politics, StreamsAbstract
This article analyzes various perspectives on the issue of political deception to provide a comprehensive picture of how it works and affects society. It draws from 34 empirical studies conducted between 2000 and 2023, available in the Scopus electronic database. The results of all empirical studies show that political deception has common patterns, rhetorical tactics, social media effects, and psychological aspects. We found that the most popular research streams are the historical context of political deception; lying in political communication; the effects of lies on political processes; social and psychological aspects of deception; media and communication channels; voter behavior, public perception and decision-making, and deception detection; theoretical approaches; and concerns about transparency and reputation. These research streams, or cross-cutting themes, reflect the complex dimensions of political deception and provide an in-depth look into its practice and impact in a democratic context. All prior empirical studies delineate applying a multilevel analysis approach that opens up horizons of understanding, involving studies at the individual, group, and societal levels in examining various aspects of politicians' behavior. The results of those multilevel analyses cover psychological influences, political and cultural contexts, media and technology, political demands, voter behavior dynamics, long-term trends, and ethical implications and responsibilities. In summary, these 34 empirical studies contribute significantly to addressing the challenges of political deception in contemporary democracy and modern society.
References
Aird, M. J., Ecker, U. K., Swire-Thompson, B., Berinsky, A. J., & Lewandowsky, S. (2018). Does truth matter to voters? The effects of correcting political misinformation in an Australian sample. Royal Society Open Science, 5(12), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180593
Armstrong-Taylor, P. (2012). When do politicians lie? B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy (BEJEAP), 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/1935-1682.3103
Aughey, A. (2002). The art and effect of political lying in Northern Ireland. Irish Political Studies, 17(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/714003199
Campos-Castillo, C., & Shuster, S. M. (2023). So what if they’re lying to us? Comparing rhetorical strategies for discrediting sources of disinformation and misinformation using an affect-based credibility rating. American Behavioral Scientist, 67(2), 201–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642211066058
Celse, J., & Chang, K. (2019). Politicians lie, so do I. Psychological Research, 83(6), 1311–1325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0954-7
Ceron, A., & Carrara, P. (2023). Fact-checking, reputation, and political falsehoods in Italy and the United States. New Media & Society, 25(3), 540–558. https://doi.org/10. 1177/14614448211012377
Choudhury, A. H. (2023). The impact of unemployment on the health of individuals: A bibliometric survey. Thammasat Review, 26(2), 74–101. Retrieved from https://sc01. tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tureview/article/view/240561
Connors, E. C. (2023). Party foul: The effectiveness of political value rhetoric is constrained by party ownership. Political Behavior, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09821-2
Croco, S. E., McDonald, J., & Turitto, C. (2021). Making them pay: Using the norm of honesty to generate costs for political lies. Electoral Studies, 69, 102250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102250
De keersmaecker, J., & Roets, A. (2019). Is there an ideological asymmetry in the moral approval of spreading misinformation by politicians? Personality and Individual Differences, 143, 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.02.003
Dixon, P. (2002). Political skills or lying and manipulation? The choreography of the Northern Ireland peace process. Political Studies, 50(4), 725–741. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00004
Edelman, M. (2001). The politics of misinformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 22(2), 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF
Gaber, I., & Fisher, C. (2022). “Strategic lying”: The case of Brexit and the 2019 U.K. election. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(2), 460–477. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1940161221994100
Galeotti, A. E. (2015). Liars or self-deceived? Reflections on political deception. Political Studies, 63(4), 887–902. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12122
Galeotti, A. E. (2018). Political self-deception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Galeotti, F., & Zizzo, D. J. (2018). Identifying voter preferences: The trade-off between honesty and competence. European Economic Review, 105, 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2018.03.007
Hahl, O., Kim, M., & Zuckerman Sivan, E. W. (2018). The authentic appeal of the lying demagogue: Proclaiming the deeper truth about political illegitimacy. American Sociological Review, 83(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417749632
Hameleers, M. (2020). Populist disinformation: Exploring intersections between online populism and disinformation in the U.S. and the Netherlands. Politics and Governance, 8(1), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i1.2478
Hameleers, M., & Minihold, S. (2022). Constructing discourses on (un)truthfulness: Attributions of reality, misinformation, and disinformation by politicians in a comparative social media setting. Communication Research, 49(8), 1176–1199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220982762
Hamlin, I., Taylor, P. J., Cross, L., MacInnes, K., & Van der Zee, S. (2022). A psychometric investigation into the structure of deception strategy use. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-020-09380-4
Hansson, S., & Kröger, S. (2021). How a lack of truthfulness can undermine democratic representation: The case of post-referendum Brexit discourses. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 23(4), 609–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120974009
Hart, W., Richardson, K., & Tortoriello, G. K. (2018). Dark personality voters find dark politicians more relatable and fit for office. Journal of Research in Personality, 75, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.05.007
Janezic, K. A., & Gallego, A. (2020). Eliciting preferences for truth-telling in a survey of politicians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(36), 22002–22008. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008144117
Kähkönen, T., Blomqvist, K., Gillespie, N., & Vanhala, M. (2021). Employee trust repair: A systematic review of 20 years of empirical research and future research directions. Journal of Business Research, 130, 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.019
Kellner, D. (2007). Lying in politics: The case of George W. Bush and Iraq. Cultural Studies? Critical Methodologies, 7(2), 132–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708606295649
Kenski, K., Filer, C. R., & Conway-Silva, B. A. (2018). Lying, liars, and lies: Incivility in 2016 presidential candidate and campaign tweets during the invisible primary. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(3), 286–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764217724840
Kronsted, C., Gallagher, S., Tollefsen, D., & Windsor, L. (2023). An enactivist account of the dynamics of lying. Adaptive Behavior, 0(0), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/105971232 31166421
Kurvers, R. H., Hertz, U., Karpus, J., Balode, M. P., Jayles, B., Binmore, K., & Bahrami, B. (2021). Strategic disinformation outperforms honesty in competition for social influence. Iscience, 24(12). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.103505
Lang, M., & Schudy, S. (2023). (Dis)honesty and the value of transparency for campaign promises. European Economic Review, 159, 104560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2023.104560
Levine, T. R. (2014). Truth-default theory (TDT): A theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14535916
Martin, B. (2014). Tactics of political lying: The Iguanas affair. Journal of Language and Politics, 13(4), 837–856. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.13.4.11mar
Mattes, K., Popova, V., & Evans, J. R. (2023). Deception detection in politics: Can voters tell when politicians are lying? Political Behavior, 45(1), 395–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09747-1
McGranahan, C. (2017). An anthropology of lying: Trump and the political sociality of moral outrage. American Ethnologist, 44(2), 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/amet.12475
Minozzi, W., & Woon, J. (2013). Lying aversion, lobbying, and context in a strategic communication experiment. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 25(3), 309–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951629813477276
Prike, T., Reason, R., Ecker, U. K., Swire-Thompson, B., & Lewandowsky, S. (2023). Would I lie to you? Party affiliation is more important than Brexit in processing political misinformation. Royal Society Open Science, 10(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220508
Ramsay, M. (2000). Justification for Lying in Politics. In L. Cliffe, M. Ramsay and D. Bartlett (eds.), The Politics of Lying: Implications for Democracy (pp. 3–26). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schepisi, M., Porciello, G., Aglioti, S. M., & Panasiti, M. S. (2020). Oculomotor behavior tracks the effect of ideological priming on deception. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 9555. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66151-1
Sharma, L. S., & Dey, T. (2022). A bibliometric study on tourism and its relation to the Covid-19 Pandemic during 2020 to 2021. Thammasat Review, 25(2), 46–63. Retrieved from https://sc01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tureview/article/view/240285
Simas, E. N., & Murdoch, D. (2020). “I didn’t lie, I misspoke”: Voters’ responses to questionable campaign claims. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 7(2), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2019.18
Swire‐Thompson, B., Berinsky, A. J., Lewandowsky, S., & Ecker, U. K. (2017). Processing political misinformation: Comprehending the Trump phenomenon. Royal Society Open Science, 4(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160802
Swire‐Thompson, B., Ecker, U. K., Lewandowsky, S., & Berinsky, A. J. (2020). They might be a liar, but they're my liar: Source evaluation and the prevalence of misinformation. Political Psychology, 41(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12586
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Vössing, K. (2021). The quality of political information. Political Studies Review, 19(4), 574–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929920917618
Walzer, M. (1973). Political action: The problem of dirty hands. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 2(2), 160–180.
Woon, J., & Kanthak, K. (2019). Elections, ability, and candidate honesty. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 157, 735–753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo. 2018.11.003
Yarhi-Milo, K., & Ribar, D. T. (2023). Who punishes leaders for lying about the use of force? Evaluating the microfoundations of domestic deception costs. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 67(4), 559–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027221118808
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Thammasat Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The opinions and ideas expressed in all submissions published in Thammasat Review are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect that of the editors or the editorial board.
The copyright of all articles including all written content and illustrations belong to Thammasat Review. Any individuals or organisation wishing to publish, reproduce and distribute a particular manuscript must seek permission from the journal first.
