The Reputational Impact of Wrongness Admission by a Politician Depending on Their Party Affiliation and Participant Ideology

ABSTRACT Politicians often face situations in which they were previously factually incorrect. And, it seems that politicians are reluctant to admit that they were wrong in these situations. However, recent work suggests that wrongness admission, or the public act of stating that one has held an inaccurate attitude or belief, confers reputational benefits. In four studies ( N total = 736), we investigated the impact of political ideology and partisanship on perceptions of politicians who engage in wrongness admission. In each study, participants read a fabricated story where a made‐up (Study 1: Republican vs. Democrat) or real (Studies 2–4: Biden vs. Trump) politician engages in wrongness admission or refuses to do so. They then rated the politician's communion, competence, their support for the politician, and their own political ideology. Communion, competence, and support were higher in the admission (vs. refusal) condition across studies. Neither the politician's party nor participant ideology significantly impacted admission results. These findings suggest that regardless of party or ideology, wrongness admission confers reputational benefits for politicians.