How Do Citizens Define and Recognize Political Lies

What constitutes the truth and what constitutes a lie appears to be increasingly contested in contemporary politics. When citizens believe politicians are lying, the social contract between representatives and citizens underlying representative democracy is violated. While there is a broad consensus about the potential harm of political lies, there is surprisingly little research about how citizens themselves define political lies and how they recognize them. Existing research has mostly approached political deception from a top-down perspective, relying on expert or academic definitions, thereby overlooking how people interpret and understand political deception themselves. This study addresses this gap by adopting a bottom-up approach that centers on citizens' understanding of political lying. Our study asks two central questions: how do citizens define political lies, and how do these definitions shape their perception of political lying? In doing so, the study examines how political lies are recognized, highlighting that individuals' own definitions might influence their perceptions of political deception. The study employs qualitative focus groups with citizens in Flanders (Belgium) and the United Kingdom. Using an abductive research design, the research first establishes a framework conceptualizing different practices of political deception based on existing theoretical literature, then examines whether citizens recognize and apply similar categories, perceive these practices as equivalent, or hold altogether different conceptions. Our findings reveal both overlap and divergence between citizens and academic understandings of political lies. Citizens largely shared the academic emphasis on intentional deception as a key characteristic of political lying but applied the concept more broadly than existing theoretical definitions. Furthermore, participants did not consistently distinguish between political lies, disinformation, and bullshit. Instead, these practices were often understood through broader notions of honesty and democratic accountability.