Does truth matter to voters? The effects of correcting political misinformation in an Australian sample

被引:35
作者
Aird, Michael J. [1 ]
Ecker, Ullrich K. H. [1 ]
Swire, Briony [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Berinsky, Adam J. [3 ]
Lewandowsky, Stephan [1 ,4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Western Australia, Sch Psychol Sci, Perth, WA, Australia
[2] Northeastern Univ, Dept Polit Sci, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[3] MIT, Dept Polit Sci, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
[4] Univ Bristol, Sch Expt Psychol, Bristol, Avon, England
[5] Univ Bristol, Cabot Inst, Bristol, Avon, England
来源
ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE | 2018年 / 5卷 / 12期
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
misinformation; fact-checking; political attitudes; belief change; voting behaviour; misconceptions; CONTINUED INFLUENCE; FACT-CHECKING; PARTY IDENTIFICATION; MEMORY; ATTITUDES; BIAS; POLARIZATION; CONSERVATISM; NEGATIVITY; INFERENCES;
D O I
10.1098/rsos.180593
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
In the 'post-truth era', political fact-checking has become an issue of considerable significance. A recent study in the context of the 2016 US election found that fact-checks of statements by Donald Trump changed participants' beliefs about those statements-regardless of whether participants supported Trump-but not their feelings towards Trump or voting intentions. However, the study balanced corrections of inaccurate statements with an equal number of affirmations of accurate statements. Therefore, the null effect of fact-checks on participants' voting intentions and feelings may have arisen because of this artificially created balance. Moreover, Trump's statements were not contrasted with statements from an opposing politician, and Trump's perceived veracity was not measured. The present study (N = 370) examined the issue further, manipulating the ratio of corrections to affirmations, and using Australian politicians (and Australian participants) from both sides of the political spectrum. We hypothesized that fact-checks would correct beliefs and that fact-checks would affect voters' support (i.e. voting intentions, feelings and perceptions of veracity), but only when corrections outnumbered affirmations. Both hypotheses were supported, suggesting that a politician's veracity does sometimes matter to voters. The effects of fact-checking were similar on both sides of the political spectrum, suggesting little motivated reasoning in the processing of fact-checks.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 67 条
[1]   Nature and operation of attitudes [J].
Ajzen, I .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2001, 52 :27-58
[2]   THE MODERATOR MEDIATOR VARIABLE DISTINCTION IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL-RESEARCH - CONCEPTUAL, STRATEGIC, AND STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS [J].
BARON, RM ;
KENNY, DA .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1986, 51 (06) :1173-1182
[3]   Rumors and Health Care Reform: Experiments in Political Misinformation [J].
Berinsky, Adam J. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 2017, 47 (02) :241-262
[4]   How Honest Do Politicians Need to Be? [J].
Birch, Sarah ;
Allen, Nicholas .
POLITICAL QUARTERLY, 2010, 81 (01) :49-56
[5]   Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate [J].
Carsey, TM ;
Layman, GC .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 2006, 50 (02) :464-477
[6]   Rational Irrationality: Modeling Climate Change Belief Polarization Using Bayesian Networks [J].
Cook, John ;
Lewandowsky, Stephan .
TOPICS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCE, 2016, 8 (01) :160-179
[7]   At Least Bias Is Bipartisan: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Partisan Bias in Liberals and Conservatives [J].
Ditto, Peter H. ;
Liu, Brittany S. ;
Clark, Cory J. ;
Wojcik, Sean P. ;
Chen, Eric E. ;
Grady, Rebecca H. ;
Celniker, Jared B. ;
Zinger, Joanne F. .
PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2019, 14 (02) :273-291
[8]  
Duelfer C., 2003, NONPROLIF REV, V23, P163, DOI [10.1080/10736700.2016.1179431, DOI 10.1080/10736700.2016.1179431]
[9]  
Duelfer Charles., 2004, COMPREHENSIVE REPORT, VI.
[10]   Political Attitudes and the Processing of Misinformation Corrections [J].
Ecker, Ullrich K. H. ;
Ang, Li Chang .
POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2019, 40 (02) :241-260