Explores how belief alignment affects interpretation of political statements among voters, indicating significant divergence in understanding based on speaker trust.
The Gricean model of communication assumes that cooperation is a precondition for successful communication but humans often use language non-cooperatively. How do language users calibrate cooperation when deciphering communicated content? The current work probes how belief alignment shapes the interpretation of underinformative statements attributed to politicians (Donald Trump or Kamala Harris) presented to self-identified Republican and Democratic participants. The results show that communicated content is more likely to be derived when beliefs align between voter group and speaker. This suggests that we may arrive at different conclusions from the same statement, depending on who the speaker is and how much trust we grant them.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nicole Gotzner (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: