Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T23:11:14.833Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 10 - Fact or Fiction

Influences on Voter Decision-Making in a Disinformation Environment

from Part II - By the People

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2022

Ashley Weinberg
Affiliation:
University of Salford
Get access

Summary

Disinformation in politics has exploded in recent years. With the rise of social media, the availability of disinformation is compounded and is easier than ever to disseminate. Research shows false political news spreads more rapidly than factually correct information, often through negative campaigns. Among efforts to fight this scourge, media organisations have turned to fact-checks to correct the record. In this chapter, we examine if voters pay attention to fact-checks in negative campaigns and to what degree fact-checks can hold candidates to account. We show that citizens find political attacks on opponents salient for voting decisions, but voters are also likely to seek fact-checks on negativity when available. Showing motivated biases, attacks by preferred candidates on less-liked opponents are sought more than the other way around, while fact-checks about a political opponent’s attacks are examined more often. Importantly, when fact-checks indicate a candidate is lying, voters are more likely to avoid that candidate, suggesting fact-checking may be able to play a role in reducing voters’ acceptance of candidates who spread disinformation.

Type
Chapter
Information
Psychology of Democracy
Of the People, By the People, For the People
, pp. 229 - 249
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amazeen, M. A. (2015). Revisiting the epistemology of fact-checking. Critical Review, 27(1), 122.Google Scholar
Andersen, D. J., Redlawsk, D. P. and Lau, R. R. (2019). The Dynamic Process Tracing Environment (DPTE) as a tool for studying political communication. Political Communication, 36(2), 303314, doi: 10.1080/10584609.2019.1579771Google Scholar
Berinsky, A. J. (2017). Rumors and health care reform: Experiments in political misinformation. British Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 241262.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, J. and Gardner, W. (1999). Emotion. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 50, 191214.Google Scholar
Calvert, R. L. (1985). The value of biased information: A Rational Choice Model of political advice. The Journal of Politics, 47(2), 530555.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. and Shepsle, K. (1989). Is negative voting an artifact? American Journal of Political Science, 33(2), 423439.Google Scholar
Fraccaroli, N., Cantarella, M. and Volpe, R. (2019). Does fake news affect voting behaviour? SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3402913.Google Scholar
Gottfried, J. A., Hardy, B. W., Winneg, K. M. and Jamieson, K. H. (2013). Did fact-checking matter in the 2012 presidential campaign? American Behavioral Scientist, 57(11), 15581567.Google Scholar
Graves, L. and Amazeen, M. A. (2019). Fact-checking as idea and practice in journalism. In Nussbaum, J. (Ed.) Oxford research encyclopedia of communication. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guess, A., Nyhan, B. and Reifler, J. (2017). Selective exposure to misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 US presidential campaign. European Research Council. www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/fake-news-2016.pdf.Google Scholar
Holbrook, A. L., Krosnick, J. A., Visser, , Gardner, W. L. and Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Attitudes toward presidential candidates and political parties: Initial optimism, inertial first impressions, and a focus on flaws. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 930950.Google Scholar
Jarman, J. W. (2016). Influence of political affiliation and criticism on the effectiveness of political fact-checking. Communication Research Reports, 33(1), 915.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341350.Google Scholar
Kernell, S. (1977). Presidential popularity and negative voting: An alternative explanation of the midterm Congressional decline of the president’s party, American Political Science Review, 71(1), 4466.Google Scholar
Kušen, E. and Strembeck, M. (2018). Politics, sentiments, and misinformation: An analysis of the Twitter discussion on the 2016 Austrian Presidential Elections. Online Social Networks and Media, 5. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2017.12.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, R. R. (1985). Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 29(1), 119138.Google Scholar
Lau, R. R., Lee, S., Heldman, and Babbit, C., P. (1999). The effects of negative political advertisements: A meta-analytical assessment. American Political Science Review, 93(4), 851876.Google Scholar
Lau, R. R. and Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing during election campaigns. Cambridge studies in public opinion and political psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lau, R. R., Lee, S. and Rovner, I. B. (2007). The effects of negative political advertisements: A meta-analytical reassessment. The Journal of Politics, 69(Nov), 11761209.Google Scholar
Lau, R. R., Andersen, D. J., Ditonto, T. M., Kleinberg, M. S. and Redlawsk, D. P. (2017). Effect of media environment, diversity, and advertising tone on information search, selective exposure, and affective polarization. Political Behavior, 39(1), 231255. doi:10.1007/s11109-016-9354-8Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N. and Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. [eng]. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 13(3), 106131.Google Scholar
Lipsitz, K., Trost, C., Grossmann, M. and Sides, J. (2005). What voters want from political campaign communication. Political Communication, 22(3), 337354.Google Scholar
Mattes, K. and Redlawsk, D. P. (2020). Voluntary exposure to fact-checks. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. doi:10.1177/1077699020923603Google Scholar
Mattes, K. and Redlawsk, D. P. (2014). The positive case for negative campaigning. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nyhan, B. and Reifler, J. (2015). The effect of fact-checking on elites: A field experiment on U.S. State Legislators. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 628640.Google Scholar
Nyhan, B. and Reifler, J. (2012). Misinformation and fact-checking. Research Findings from Social Science. Media Policy Initiative, New America Foundation.Google Scholar
Nyhan, B. and Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303330.Google Scholar
Nyhan, B., Reifler, J. and Ubel, P. A. (2013). The hazards of correcting myths about health care reform. [eng]. Medical care, 51(2), 127132.Google Scholar
Pingree, R. J., Brossard, D. and McLeod, D. M. (2014). Effects of journalistic adjudication on factual beliefs, news evaluations, information seeking, and epistemic political efficacy. Mass Communication and Society, 17(5), 615638.Google Scholar
Pratto, F. and John, O. P. (1991). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 380391.Google Scholar
Redlawsk, D. P. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration?: Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. The Journal of Politics, 64(4), 10211044.Google Scholar
Redlawsk, D. P., Civettini, A. J. W. and Emmerson, K. M. (2010). The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever ‘Get it’? Political Psychology, 31(4), 563593.Google Scholar
Shin, J. and Thorson, K. (2017). Partisan selective sharing: The biased diffusion of fact-checking messages on social media. Journal of Communication, 67(2), 233255.Google Scholar
Swire, B., Berinsky, A. J., Lewandowsky, S. and Ecker, U. K. H. (2017). Processing political misinformation: Comprehending the Trump phenomenon. Royal Society Open Science, 4(3), 160802. doi:10.1098/rsos.160802Google Scholar
Taber, C. S. and Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755769.Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P., Peebles, M. M., Grodner, D. J. and Durgin, F. H. (2013). The wished-for always wins until the winner was inevitable all along: Motivated reasoning and belief bias regulate emotion during elections, Political Psychology, 36(4), 431448.Google Scholar
Thorson, E. (2015). Belief echoes: The persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Communication, 33(3), 460480.Google Scholar
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D. and Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 11461151.Google Scholar
Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 12.Google Scholar
Weeks, B. E. (2015). Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: How anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 699719.Google Scholar
Wood, T. and Porter, E. (2019). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior, 41, 135163.Google Scholar
Young, S. (2011). Television studies after TV: Understanding television in the post-broadcast era. Continuum, 25(1), 125129, doi:10.1080/10304312.2010.506950Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×