ABSTRACT
Most opinions on complex political issues can be underpinned by perceived facts that support both for and against positions. These perceived facts are, in turn, correct or incorrect to varying degrees. Drawing on previous research on considerations, ambivalence, misperceptions, information-processing, and related strands of research, the chapter makes a case for fact-based issue ambivalence, which it describes as a democratic gold-standard of public opinion. Believing in facts that are in line with both sides is not just a worthwhile normative goal, but also a potential means to a more politically engaged and discerning electorate. After all, previous research on ambivalence and cross-pressured voters indicates that internally conflicted individuals tend to engage less in directional motivated reasoning. Based on survey data from a nuclear power referendum in Sweden, the chapter concludes with a brief empirical illustration of how fact-based issue ambivalence can be measured. The results suggest that ordinary people often rely on perceived facts when justifying their issue positions rather than value-based or other reasons. This tendency is especially pronounced among the first stated explanations for a position. Moreover, at least on this fairly technical issue, a large majority of the perceived facts are correct rather than incorrect.
