Literature DB >> 33580444

The relationship between political affiliation and beliefs about sources of "fake news".

Robert B Michael1, Brooke O Breaux2.   

Abstract

The 2016 US Presidential campaign saw an explosion in popularity for the term "fake news." This phenomenon raises interesting questions: Which news sources do people believe are fake, and what do people think "fake news" means? One possibility is that beliefs about the news reflect a bias to disbelieve information that conflicts with existing beliefs and desires. If so, then news sources people consider "fake" might differ according to political affiliation. To test this idea, we asked people to tell us what "fake news" means, and to rate several news sources for the extent to which each provides real news, fake news, and propaganda. We found that political affiliation influenced people's descriptions and their beliefs about which news sources are "fake." These results have implications for people's interpretations of news information and for the extent to which people can be misled by factually incorrect journalism.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Desirability bias; Fake news; Journalism; Politics

Year:  2021        PMID: 33580444      PMCID: PMC7880518          DOI: 10.1186/s41235-021-00278-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic        ISSN: 2365-7464


  19 in total

Review 1.  The case for motivated reasoning.

Authors:  Z Kunda
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 17.737

2.  Relative - not absolute - judgments of credibility affect susceptibility to misinformation conveyed during discussion.

Authors:  Lauren French; Maryanne Garry; Kazuo Mori
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2010-11-26

3.  Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing.

Authors:  Stephan Lewandowsky; Ullrich K H Ecker; Colleen M Seifert; Norbert Schwarz; John Cook
Journal:  Psychol Sci Public Interest       Date:  2012-12

4.  Political Orientation Predicts Credulity Regarding Putative Hazards.

Authors:  Daniel M T Fessler; Anne C Pisor; Colin Holbrook
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2017-03-31

5.  Survey Satisficing Inflates Reliability and Validity Measures: An Experimental Comparison of College and Amazon Mechanical Turk Samples.

Authors:  Tyler Hamby; Wyn Taylor
Journal:  Educ Psychol Meas       Date:  2016-01-23       Impact factor: 2.821

Review 6.  Source monitoring.

Authors:  M K Johnson; S Hashtroudi; D S Lindsay
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 17.737

7.  False Memories for Fake News During Ireland's Abortion Referendum.

Authors:  Gillian Murphy; Elizabeth F Loftus; Rebecca Hofstein Grady; Linda J Levine; Ciara M Greene
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2019-08-21

8.  Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning.

Authors:  Gordon Pennycook; David G Rand
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2018-06-20

9.  Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook.

Authors:  Andrew Guess; Jonathan Nagler; Joshua Tucker
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 14.136

View more
  3 in total

1.  Who Will Help to Strive Against the "Infodemic"? Reciprocity Norms Enforce the Information Sharing Accuracy of the Individuals.

Authors:  Kehan Li; Weiwei Xiao
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-06-30

2. 

Authors:  Catherine Beauvais
Journal:  Rev Rhum Ed Fr       Date:  2022-09-21

3.  Fake news: Why do we believe it?

Authors:  Catherine Beauvais
Journal:  Joint Bone Spine       Date:  2022-03-04       Impact factor: 5.263

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.