Beliefs throughout the “bogus news”
To respond to you to definitely matter, we again examined the fresh solutions subjects gave whenever requested exactly what fake development and you can propaganda imply. I assessed just those responses where sufferers given a description to possess possibly identity (55%, letter = 162). Note that the new proportion regarding subjects which offered eg definitions try less than during the Tests 1 (95%) and dos (88%). Abreast of better examination, i discovered that numerous subjects had more than likely pasted definitions of an Search on the internet. From inside the an exploratory research, we discovered a mathematically significant difference on the probability one to members provided a great pasted definition, centered on Political Character, ? 2 (dos, Letter = 162) = eight.66, p = 0.022. Particularly, conservatives (23%) was basically probably be than simply centrists (6%) to incorporate a great pasted meaning, ? 2 (1, N = 138) = seven.30, p = 0.007, Or = 4.57, 95% CI [step one.29, ], various other p viewpoints > 0.256. Liberals fell between these extremes, with 13% providing a good pasted meaning. Because the we were wanting subjects’ individual definitions, i omitted this type of suspicious answers of investigation (n = 27).
We adopted an identical analytic procedure such as Experiments 1 and you may dos. Desk 4 screens these research. Since dining table shows, the latest size of sufferers whose solutions integrated the advantages described inside the Try out step one have been comparable around the governmental character. Particularly, i don’t replicate brand new in search of regarding Test step one, where people who known kept was in fact expected to render separate definitions towards the terminology than simply individuals who recognized proper, ? 2 (1, N = 90) = step 1.42, p = 0.233, all other p values > 0.063.
Most exploratory analyses
We now turn to our additional exploratory analyses specific to this experiment. First, we examine the extent to which people’s reported familiarity with our news sources varies according to their political identification. Liberals and conservatives iliar with different sources, and we know that familiarity can act as a guide in determining what is true (Alter and Oppenheimer 2009). To examine this idea, we ran a two-way Ailiarity, treating Political Identification as a between-subjects factor with three levels (Left, Center, Right) and News Source as a within-subject factor with 42 levels (i.e., Table 1). This analysis showed that the influence of political identification on subjects’ familiarity ratings differed across the sources: F(2, 82) = 2.11, p < 0.001, ? 2 = 0.01. Closer inspection revealed that conservatives reported higher familiarity than liberals for most news sources, with centrists falling in-between (Fs range 6.62-, MRight-Leftover range 0.62-1.39, all p values < 0.002). The exceptions-that is, where familiarity ratings were not meaningfully different across political identification-were the media giants: The BBC, CNN, Fox News, Google News, The Guardian, The New York Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Yahoo News, and CBS News.
We also predicted that familiarity with our news sources would be positively associated with real news ratings and negatively associated with fake news ratings. To test this idea, we calculated-for each news source-correlations between familiarity and real news ratings, and familiarity and visit their site fake news ratings. In line with our prediction, we found that familiarity was positively associated with real news ratings across all news sources: maximum rGenuine(292) = 0.48, 95% CI [0.39, 0.57]; minimum rReal(292) = 0.15, 95% CI [0.04, 0.26]. But in contrast with what we predicted, we found that familiarity was also positively associated with fake news ratings, for two out of every three news sources: maximum rBogus(292) = 0.34, 95% CI [0.23, 0.44]; minimum rFake(292) = 0.12, 95% CI [0.01, 0.23]. Only one of the remaining 14 sources-CNN-was negatively correlated, rFake(292) = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.26, -0.03]; all other CIs crossed zero. Taken together, these exploratory results, while tentative, might suggest that familiarity with a news source leads to a bias in which people agree with any claim about that source.