Tolerance for democratic norm violations increases when sincerity replaces accuracy as a marker of honesty

Why feelings versus facts matter in politics

When voters decide whether a politician is honest, they do not all mean the same thing by “honest.” Some people care most about whether statements match verifiable facts; others care more that a leader “speaks from the heart,” even if the details are wrong. This article explores how these different ideas of honesty can quietly change how willing people are to accept politicians who bend or break democratic rules—an issue that matters wherever democracy appears to be under strain.

Two ways to think about honesty

The authors focus on two everyday but contrasting views of honesty. In a “fact‑speaking” view, honesty means getting the facts right and basing claims on evidence. In a “belief‑speaking” view, honesty means saying what you truly believe, even if it conflicts with expert knowledge or data. Modern political movements, especially on the populist right, often celebrate belief‑speaking: leaders are praised for “saying what they really think” and tapping into common sense, while experts and institutions are dismissed as part of a distant elite. The study asks whether nudging people toward one view or the other changes how they react when a politician breaks democratic norms.

Testing voters with imagined politicians

To investigate this, the researchers ran four online experiments with more than 1,500 adults in the United Kingdom and the United States. Participants were first asked to adopt one of the two perspectives on honesty for the duration of the study, by taking the point of view of a character who prized either sincerity (belief‑speaking) or accuracy (fact‑speaking). They then read a short story about a fictional politician, Mr. Smith. Depending on the version, Mr. Smith could be portrayed as respecting democratic norms or as violating them—for example by encouraging violence, pushing to widen his own power, or using misleading information. He could also be described as either telling the truth or lying in his public statements.

How perspective shaped tolerance for rule‑breaking

After reading about Mr. Smith, participants rated how acceptable they found his behavior, and how honest and likeable they thought he was. Across all four experiments, a consistent pattern emerged. When people were placed in a belief‑speaking frame of mind, they showed higher tolerance for democratic norm violations than when they were in a fact‑speaking frame. This was true for different kinds of violations—such as inciting supporters, acting dishonestly, or trying to concentrate power—though the strength of the effect differed somewhat across studies. At the same time, people clearly noticed and disliked bad behavior: politicians who violated norms were judged as less honest and less likeable than those who played by the rules, and being caught in a lie lowered both perceived honesty and tolerance for norm‑breaking.

The role of politics and gut feelings

The researchers also measured participants’ broader tendencies, such as whether they usually rely more on evidence or intuition when deciding what is true, and where they placed themselves on the left‑right political spectrum. As expected, people on the political right were somewhat more inclined to favor intuition over evidence and were generally more accepting of norm violations than those on the left. Yet these background traits did not wipe out the experimental effect. Even among right‑leaning participants—who were most likely to prefer belief‑speaking from the start—being guided into a fact‑focused perspective still reduced their tolerance for a rule‑breaking politician, though the shift was smaller than for left‑leaning participants.

What this means for defending democracy

Overall, the study shows that simply steering people to think of honesty in terms of heartfelt sincerity rather than factual accuracy can make them more forgiving when politicians undermine democratic norms. The reverse is also true: encouraging citizens to judge honesty by how well statements match reality can make them less accepting of leaders who incite, mislead, or grab power, regardless of their political leanings. For a lay observer, the takeaway is straightforward: in an era of democratic backsliding, how we talk about “telling it like it is” versus “getting the facts right” is not just semantics—it can subtly shape how much we let our leaders get away with.

Citation: Huttunen, K.J.A., Lewandowsky, S. Tolerance for democratic norm violations increases when sincerity replaces accuracy as a marker of honesty. Commun Psychol 4, 45 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-026-00407-w

Keywords: democratic norms, political honesty, populism, misinformation, voter attitudes