Original Article
Political Psychology in the Digital (mis)Information age: A Model of News Belief and Sharing
Correction(s) for this article
-
Corrigendum: Political Psychology in the Digital (mis)Information age: A Model of News Belief and Sharing
- Volume 16Issue 1Social Issues and Policy Review
- pages: 310-311
- First Published online: June 24, 2021
Jay J. Van Bavel,
Elizabeth A. Harris,
Philip Pärnamets,
Steve Rathje,
Kimberly C. Doell,
Joshua A. Tucker,
Corresponding Author
Jay J. Van Bavel
Department of Psychology and Center for Neural Science, New York University
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jay J. Van Bavel, Department of Psychology and Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, NY 10003, USA [e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]].
Search for more papers by this authorElizabeth A. Harris
Department of Psychology, New York University
Search for more papers by this authorPhilip Pärnamets
Department of Psychology, New York University
Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute
Search for more papers by this authorKimberly C. Doell
Department of Psychology, New York University
Search for more papers by this authorJoshua A. Tucker
Department of Politics & Center for Social Media and Politics, New York University
Search for more papers by this author
Jay J. Van Bavel,
Elizabeth A. Harris,
Philip Pärnamets,
Steve Rathje,
Kimberly C. Doell,
Joshua A. Tucker,
Corresponding Author
Jay J. Van Bavel
Department of Psychology and Center for Neural Science, New York University
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jay J. Van Bavel, Department of Psychology and Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, NY 10003, USA [e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]].
Search for more papers by this authorElizabeth A. Harris
Department of Psychology, New York University
Search for more papers by this authorPhilip Pärnamets
Department of Psychology, New York University
Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute
Search for more papers by this authorKimberly C. Doell
Department of Psychology, New York University
Search for more papers by this authorJoshua A. Tucker
Department of Politics & Center for Social Media and Politics, New York University
Search for more papers by this authorThis work was supported in part by the John Templeton Foundation to JVB, the Swiss National Science Foundation to KCD (grant number: P400PS_190997), the Gates Cambridge Scholarship to SR (supported by the Gates Cambridge Trust), and the Swedish Research Council (2016-06793) to PP.
Abstract
The spread of misinformation, including “fake news,” propaganda, and conspiracy theories, represents a serious threat to society, as it has the potential to alter beliefs, behavior, and policy. Research is beginning to disentangle how and why misinformation is spread and identify processes that contribute to this social problem. We propose an integrative model to understand the social, political, and cognitive psychology risk factors that underlie the spread of misinformation and highlight strategies that might be effective in mitigating this problem. However, the spread of misinformation is a rapidly growing and evolving problem; thus scholars need to identify and test novel solutions, and work with policy makers to evaluate and deploy these solutions. Hence, we provide a roadmap for future research to identify where scholars should invest their energy in order to have the greatest overall impact.
References
- Abramowitz, A.I. & Webster, S.W. (2018) Negative partisanship: why Americans dislike parties but behave like rabid partisans. Political Psychology, 39, 119–135.
- Alfano, M., Iurino, K., Stey, P., Robinson, B., Christen, M., Yu, F., et al. (2017) Development and validation of a multi-dimensional measure of intellectual humility. PloS One, 12, e0182950.
- Allcott, H., Gentzkow, M. & Yu, C. (2019) Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media. Research & Politics, 6, 2053168019848554.
- Allport, F.H. & Lepkin, M. (1945) Wartime rumors of waste and special privilege: why some people believe them. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 40, 3–36.
- Altay, S., Hacquin, A.S. & Mercier, H. (2019) Why do so few people share fake news? It hurts their reputation. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820969893
10.31234/osf.io/82r6q Google Scholar
- Aslett, K., Godel, W., Sanderson, Z., Persily, N., Tucker, J.A., Nagler, J., et al. (2020) The truth about fake news: measuring vulnerability to fake news online. Paper presented at the 2020 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.
- Associated Press (2020) Facebook to label misleading politicians’ posts, including Trump's—Los Angeles Times. Available at: https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-06-26/facebook-following-twitter-will-label-posts-that-violate-its-rules-including-trumps
- Bäck, H. & Carroll, R. (2018) Polarization and Gridlock in Parliamentary Regimes. The Legislative Scholar, 3, 2–5.
- Bago, B., Rand, D.G. & Pennycook, G. (2020) Fake news, fast and slow: deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149, 1608–1613.
- Banda, K.K. & Cluverius, J. (2018) Elite polarization, party extremity, and affective polarization. Electoral Studies, 56, 90–101.
- Baron, J. & Jost, J.T. (2019) False equivalence: are liberals and conservatives in the United States equally biased?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 292–303.
- Batailler, C., Brannon, S.M., Teas, P.E. & Gawronski, B. (in press). A Signal Detection Approach to Understanding the Identification of Fake News. Perspectives on Psychological Science.
- Berinsky, A. & Wittenberg, C. (2020) Misinformation and its Corrections. In N. Persily & J. A. Tucker (Eds.), Social Media and Democracy (pp. 163–198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Berinsky, A.J. (2017) Rumors and health care reform: experiments in political misinformation. British Journal of Political Science, 47, 241–262.
- Bond, S. (2020) Conservatives flock To Mercer-funded Parler, claim censorship on Facebook and Twitter. NPR.Org. Available at: www.npr.org/2020/11/14/934833214/conservatives-flock-to-mercer-funded-parler-claim-censorship-on-facebook-and-twi
- Bossetta, M. (2018) The digital architectures of social media: comparing political campaigning on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat in the 2016 US election. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95, 471–496.
- Brader, T., De Sio, L., Paparo, A. & Tucker, J.A., (2020) “Where you lead, I will follow”: partisan cueing on high-salience issues in a turbulent multiparty system. Political Psychology. 41(4), 795–812.
- Brader, T.A., Tucker, J.A. & Duell, D. (2012) Which parties can lead opinion? Experimental evidence on partisan cue taking in multiparty democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 46, 1485–1517.
- Brady, W.J., Crockett, M. & Van Bavel, J.J. (2020) The MAD Model of Moral Contagion: the role of motivation, attention and design in the spread of moralized content online. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 15(4), 978–1010.
- Brady, W.J., Wills, J.A., Jost, J.T., Tucker, J.A. & Van Bavel, J.J. (2017) Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 7313–7318.
- Brashier, N.M. & Schacter, D.L. (2020) Aging in an era of fake news. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29, 316–323
- Bronstein, M.V., Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Rand, D.G. & Cannon, T.D. (2019) Belief in fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism, and reduced analytic thinking. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8, 108–117.
- Bullock, J. (2007) Experiments on partisanship and public opinion: party cues, false beliefs, and Bayesian updating. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
- Bullock, J.G., Gerber, A.S., Hill, S.J. & Huber, G.A. (2013) Partisan bias in factual beliefs about politics. National Bureau of Economic Research.
- Calvillo, D.P., Ross, B.J., Garcia, R.J., Smelter, T.J. & Rutchick, A.M. (2020) Political ideology predicts perceptions of the threat of COVID-19 (and susceptibility to fake news about it). Social Psychological and Personality Science. 11(8), 1119–1128.
- Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., Miller, W.E. & Stokes, D.E. (1960) The American voter. New York: Wiley.
- Carlson, E. (2016) Finding partisanship where we least expect it: evidence of partisan bias in a new African democracy. Political Behavior, 38, 129–154.
- Chan, M.S., Jones, C.R., Hall Jamieson, K. & Albarracín, D. (2017) Debunking: a meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological Science, 28, 1531–1546.
- Cikara, M., Van Bavel, J.J., Ingbretsen, Z.A. & Lau, T. (2017) Decoding “Us” and “Them”: neural representations of generalized group concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 621–631.
- Clayton, K., Blair, S., Busam, J.A., Forstner, S., Glance, J., Green, G., et al. (2019) Real solutions for fake news? Measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact-check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media. Political Behavior, 42, 1–23.
- Coan, T.G., Merolla, J.L., Stephenson, L.B. & Zechmeister, E.J. (2008) It's not easy being green: minor party labels as heuristic aids. Political Psychology, 29, 389–405.
- Converse, P.E. (1969) Of time and partisan stability. Comparative Political Studies, 2(2), 139–171.
- Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J. & Wänke, M. (2010) The truth about the truth: a meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 238–257.
- Devito, M.A., Birnholtz, J. & Hancock, J.T. (2017) Platforms, people, and perception: using affordances to understand self-presentation on social media. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW, 740–754.
- Dietz, T. (2020) Political events and public views on climate change. Climatic Change, 161, 1–8.
- Ditto, P.H., Liu, B.S., Clark, C.J., Wojcik, S.P., Chen, E.E., Grady, R.H., et al. (2018) At least bias is bipartisan: a meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 273–291.
- Douglas, K.M., Sutton, R.M. & Cichocka, A. (2017) The psychology of conspiracy theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 538–542.
- Druckman, J.N. (2001) Using credible advice to overcome framing effects. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 17, 62–82.
- Ecker, U.K., Hogan, J.L. & Lewandowsky, S. (2017) Reminders and repetition of misinformation: helping or hindering its retraction?. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 185–192.
- Fazio, L.K., Rand, D.G. & Pennycook, G. (2019) Repetition increases perceived truth equally for plausible and implausible statements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 1705–1710.
- Finkel, E.J., et al. (2020) Political sectarianism in America. Science, 370, 533–536
- Frederick, S. (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic perspectives, 19, 25–42.
- Gerber, A.S. & Huber, G.A. (2010) Partisanship, political control, and economic assessments. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 153–173.
- Guess, A., Nagler, J. & Tucker, J. (2019) Less than you think: prevalence and predictors of fake news spread on Facebook. Science Advances, 5, eaaau4586.
- Guess, A., Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. (2018) Selective exposure to misinformation: evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 US presidential campaign. European Research Council, 9, 4.
- Guess, A., Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. (2020) Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 472–480.
- Guess, A.M. & Lyons, B.A. (2020) Misinformation, Disinformation, and Online Propaganda. In N. Persily & J. A. Tucker (Eds.), Social media and democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 2–33.
10.1017/9781108890960.003 Google Scholar
- Guess, A.M., Lerner, M., Lyons, B., Montgomery, J.M., Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., et al. (2020) A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 15536–15545.
- Hahnel, U.J.J., Mumenthaler, C. & Brosch, T. (2020) Emotional foundations of the public climate change divide. Climatic Change, 161, 9–19.
- Hasher, L., Goldstein, D. & Toppino, T. (1977) Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 107–112.
- Hogg, M.A. & Reid, S.A. (2001) Social identity, leadership, and power. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption. London: Psychology Press, pp. 159–180.
- Hornsey, M.J. & Fielding, K.S. (2020) Understanding (and Reducing) Inaction on Climate Change. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14(1), 3–35.
- Hunt, J. (2017). ‘ Fake news’ named Collins dictionary's official Word of the Year. The Independent.
- Iyengar, S., Sood, G. & Lelkes, Y. (2012) Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405–431.
- Jiang, S., Robertson, R.E. & Wilson, C. (2019) Bias misperceived: the role of partisanship and misinformation in YouTube comment moderation. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web and Social Media, ICWSM 2019, pp. 278–289.
- Johnson, M.K., Rowatt, W.C. & Labouff, J.P. (2012) Religiosity and prejudice revisited: in-group favoritism, out-group derogation, or both? Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 4, 154–168.
- Jost, J.T., Federico, C.M. & Napier, J.L. (2009) Political ideology: its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337.
- Jost, J.T., Hennes, E.P. & Lavine, H. (2013) “ Hot” political cognition: its self-, group-, and system-serving purposes. Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 851–875.
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199730018.013.0041 Google Scholar
- Juul, J.S. & Porter, M.A. (2019) Hipsters on networks: how a minority group of individuals can lead to an antiestablishment majority. Physical Review E, 99, 022313.
- Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Dawson, E.C. & Slovic, P. (2017) Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy, 1, 54–86.
10.1017/bpp.2016.2 Google Scholar
- Kahan, D.M. (2012) Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection: an experimental study. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407–424.
- Kata, A. (2010) A postmodern Pandora's box: anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet. Vaccine, 28(7), 1709–1716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.12.022
- Kevins A. & Soroka S. (2018). Growing Apart? Partisan Sorting in Canada, 1992–2015. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 103–133. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008423917000713.
- Kreiss, D., Lawrence, R.G. & McGregor, S.C. (2017) In their own words: political practitioner accounts of candidates, audiences, affordances, genres, and timing in strategic social media use. Political Communication, 35, 8–31.
- Law, S., Hawkins, S.A. & Craik, F.I. (1998) Repetition-induced belief in the elderly: rehabilitating age-related memory deficits. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 91–107.
- Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Ecker, U.K.H., Albarracín, D., Amazeen, M. A., Kendeou, P., Lombardi, D., Newman, E. J., Pennycook, G., Porter, E., Rand, D. G., Rapp, D. N., Reifler, J., Roozenbeek, J., Schmid, P., Seifert, C. M., Sinatra, G. M., Swire–Thompson, B., van der Linden, S., Vraga, E. K., Wood, T. J., Zaragoza, M. S. (2020). The Debunking Handbook. Available at https://sks.to/db2020. https://doi.org/10.17910/b7.1182
- Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U.K., Seifert, C.M., Schwarz, N. & Cook, J. (2012) Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106–131.
- Lorenz-Spreen, P., Lewandowsky, S., Sunstein, C.R. & Hertwig, R. (2020) How behavioural sciences can promote truth, autonomy and democratic discourse online. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 1–8.
- Maertens, R., Roozenbeek, J., Basol, M. & van der Linden, S. (2020) Long-term effectiveness of inoculation against misinformation: three longitudinal experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000315
- Martel, C., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D.G. (2020) Reliance on emotion promotes belief in fake news. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5, 1–20.
- Matthews, D. (2017) Donald Trump has tweeted climate change skepticism 115 times. Here's all of it. Available at: www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/1/15726472/trump-tweets-global-warming-paris-climate-agreement. Date accessed: 09.10.2020.
- Mccright, A.M. & Dunlap, R.E. (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public's views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociological Quarterly, 52, 155–194.
- McGuire, W. (1964) Inducing resistance to persuasion. In: L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 1, pp. 191–229.
- Meffert, M.F., Chung, S., Joiner, A.J., Waks, L. & Garst, J. (2006) The effects of negativity and motivated information processing during a political campaign. Journal of Communication, 56, 27–51.
- Metzger, M.M. & Tucker, J.A. (2017) Social media and EuroMaidan: a review essay. Slavic Review, 76(1), 169–191.
- Meyer, M. (2019) Fake news, conspiracy, and intellectual vice. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 8, 9–19.
- Meyer, M., Alfano, M. & De Bruin, B. (2020) Epistemic vice predicts acceptance of Covid-19 misinformation. Available at SSRN, 3644356.
- Mosseri, A. (2017) Working to stop misinformation and false news. Facebook Newsroom.
- Mourão, R.R. & Robertson, C.T. (2019) Fake news as discursive integration: an analysis of sites that publish false, misleading, hyperpartisan and sensational information. Journalism Studies, 20, 2077–2095.
- Nolan, C. ( Director). (2008) The Dark Knight [Film]. Warner Bros.
- Murphy, C. (2020) “ Twitter tests ‘Misleading information’ label when users try to ‘like’ a tweet with misinformation. USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network. Available at: www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/11/10/twitter-tests-add-misleading-information-label-when-liking-tweets/6231896002/.
- Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. (2010) When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303–330.
- Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. (2015) The effect of fact-checking on elites: a field experiment on US state legislators. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 628–640.
- Osmundsen, M., Bor, A., Vahlstrup, P.B., Bechmann, A. & Petersen, M.B. (2020) Partisan polarization is the primary psychological motivation behind “fake news” sharing on Twitter. Unpublished manuscript.
- Paige, L.E., Fields, E.C. & Gutchess, A. (2019) Influence of age on the effects of lying on memory. Brain and Cognition, 133, 42–53.
- Pennycook, G. & Rand, D.G. (2019a) Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 2521–2526.
- Pennycook, G. & Rand, D.G. (2019b) Lazy, not biased: susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50
- Pennycook, G. & Rand, D.G. (2020) Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. Journal of Personality, 88, 185–200.
- Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Collins, E.T. & Rand, D.G. (2020a) The implied truth effect: attaching warnings to a subset of fake news headlines increases perceived accuracy of headlines without warnings. Management Science.
- Pennycook, G., Cannon, T.D. & Rand, D.G. (2018) Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 1865–1880.
- Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J.A., Barr, N., Koehler, D.J. & Fugelsang, J.A. (2015) On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision making, 10, 549–563.
- Pennycook, G., Epstein, Z., Mosleh, M., Arechar, A.A., Eckles, D. & Rand, D.G. (2019) Understanding and reducing the spread of misinformation online. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/3n9u8.
- Pereira, A., Harris, E. & Van Bavel, J.J. (2020) Identity concerns drive belief: the impact of partisan identity on the belief and spread of true and false news. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/7vc5d
- N. Persily & J. Tucker (Eds.). (2020) Social media and democracy: The state of the field, prospects for reform (SSRC Anxieties of Democracy). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/9781108890960 Google Scholar
- Persily, N. (2017) The 2016 US Election: can democracy survive the internet?. Journal of Democracy, 28, 63–76.
- Petersen, M., Osmundsen, M. & Arceneaux, K. (2020) The “need for chaos” and motivations to share hostile political rumors. Unpublished manuscript.
- Pew Research Center (2020) Demographics of social media users and adoption in the United States. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media
- Poulin, M.J. & Haase, C.M. (2015) Growing to trust: evidence that trust increases and sustains well-being across the life span. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 614–621.
- Prull, M.W., Dawes, L.L.C., Martin III, A.M., Rosenberg, H.F. & Light, L.L. (2006) Recollection and familiarity in recognition memory: adult age differences and neuropsychological test correlates. Psychology and Aging, 21, 107.
- Renström, E.A., Bäck, H. & Schmeisser, Y. (2020) Vi ogillar olika. Om affektiv polarisering bland svenska väljare in Ulrika Andersson. Anders Carlander & Patrik Öhberg (Ed.) Regntunga skyar, ( 427–444). Göteborgs: Göteborgs universitet, SOM-institutet.
- Rathje, Steve, Van Bavel, J. J., & van der Linden, Sander (2020). Outgroup animosity drives engagement on social media. Unpublished Manuscript.
- Roozenbeek, J., Schneider, C.R., Dryhurst, S., Kerr, J., Freeman, A.L.J., Recchia, G., et al. (2020) Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. Royal Society Open Science, 7, 201199.
- Roozenbeek, J. & van der Linden, S. (2019) Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Palgrave Communications, 6, 65.
- Ross, L., Lepper, M.R. & Hubbard, M. (1975) Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 880.
- Roth, Y. & Pickles, N. (2020) Updating our approach to misleading information. Twitter Blog.
- Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S. & Haidt, J. (1999) The CAD triad hypothesis: a mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 574.
- Samuels, D. & Zucco Jr, C. (2014) The power of partisanship in Brazil: evidence from survey experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 212–225.
- Sarlin, B. (2018) ‘Fake news’ went viral in 2016. This expert studied who clicked. NBC.
- Schwarz, N., Newman, E. & Leach, W. (2016) Making the truth stick & the myths fade: lessons from cognitive psychology. Behavioral Science & Policy, 2, 85–95.
10.1353/bsp.2016.0009 Google Scholar
- Shao, C., Ciampaglia, G.L., Flammini, A. & Menczer, F. (2016) Hoaxy: A Platform for Tracking Online Misinformation. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web. (pp. 745–750). Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. https://doi.org/10.1145/2872518.2890098
- Shearer, E. & Gottfried, J. (2017) News use across social media platforms 2017. Pew Research Center, Journalism and Media.
- Silverman, C. (2016) This analysis shows how viral fake election news stories outperformed real news on Facebook. BuzzFeed News.
- Spencer, W.D. & Raz, N. (1995) Differential effects of aging on memory for content and context: a meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 10, 527.
- Stukal, D., Sanovich, S., Bonneau, R. & Tucker, J.A. (2017) Detecting bots on Russian political Twitter. Big Data, 5, 310–324.
- Tajfel, H. (1970) Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96–102.
- Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1986) The social theory of intergroup behaviour. Key Readings in Social Psychology. London: Psychology Press, pp. 276–293.
- Tambini, D. (2017) Fake news: public policy responses. LSE Media Policy Project Series.
- Tomz, M. & Van Houweling, R.P. (2008) Candidate positioning and voter choice. American Political Science Review, 303–318.
- Törnberg, P. (2018) Echo chambers and viral misinformation: modeling fake news as complex contagion. PLoS One, 13, e0203958.
- Torrey, N.L. (1961) Les philosophes: The philosophers of the enlightenment and modern democracy. Capricorn Books, 1961, pp. 277–278
- Tucker, J.A., Guess, A., Barbera, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A. Sanovich, S., et al. (2018) Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: a review of the scientific literature. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3144139
- Van Bavel, J.J. & Pereira, A. (2018) The partisan brain: an identity-based model of political belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 213–224.
- van der Linden, S. (2019) Countering science denial. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 889–890.
- van der Linden, S., Panagopoulos, C., Azevedo, F. & Jost, J. T. (2020). The paranoid style in American politics revisited: an ideological asymmetry in conspiratorial thinking. Polit. Psychol. [Preprint].
- van der Linden, S., Panagopoulos, C. & Roozenbeek, J. (2020) You are fake news: political bias in perceptions of fake news. Media. Culture and Society, 42, 460–470.
- Vosoughi, S., Roy, D. & Aral, S. (2018) The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359, 1146–1151.
- Walker, M. & Gottfried, J. (2019) Republicans far more likely than democrats to say fact checkers favor one side. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/27/republicans-far-more-likely-than-democrats-to-say-fact-checkers-tend-to-favor-one-side/
- Walter, N. & Murphy, S.T. (2018) How to unring the bell: a meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. Communication Monographs, 85, 423–441.
- Walter, N., Cohen, J., Holbert, R.L. & Morag, Y. (2020) Fact-checking: A meta-analysis of what works and for whom. Political Communication, 37, 350–375.
- Wells, C., Shah, D.V., Pevehouse, J.C., Yang, J., Pelled, A., Boehm, F., et al. (2016) How Trump drove coverage to the nomination: hybrid media campaigning. Political Communication, 33(4), 669–676.
- Wong, J.C. F. (2020, October 6) Facebook to ban QAnon-themed groups, pages and accounts in crackdown. The Guardian. Available at: www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/06/qanon-facebook-ban-conspiracy-theory-groups
- Wood, T. & Porter, E. (2019) The elusive backfire effect: mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior, 41, 135–163.
- Zawadzki, S.J., Bouman, T., Steg, L., Bojarskich, V. & Druen, P.B. (2020) Translating climate beliefs into action in a changing political landscape. Climatic Change, 161, 21–42.
- Zimerman, A. & Pinheiro, F. (2020) Appearances Can Be Deceptive: political Polarization, Agrarian Policy, and Coalitional Presidentialism in Brazil. Politics & Policy, 48, 339-371.
Citing Literature
January 2021
Pages 84-113
