Little room for motivated reasoning? How partisans respond to government misconduct with well-substantiated evidence

How do voters respond to a political scandal? Previous studies emphasize partisan motivated reasoning as a key factor in shaping responses to political scandals but offer mixed evidence. I argue that partisans are less likely to engage in motivated reasoning when two conditions are met: (1) clear evidence of severe misconduct and (2) clear responsibility attribution to an involved party. By analyzing an unexpected video release of the Partygate scandal in Britain during which a nationally representative survey was fielded, I find that even copartisans and independents show a decline in evaluation of government performance in handling COVID-19, feel less favorable toward the involved governing party, and report reduced intentions to vote for the party. In contrast, I find little evidence that supporters of the opposing party show a decline in these evaluations, likely due to prior negative expectations and floor effects. The findings highlight the limitations of partisan motivated reasoning among copartisans and voters’ intention to punish the involved party in the face of unambiguous evidence of government misconduct.