Values regarding the “fake news”

To answer one to matter, i once again assessed the fresh responses victims provided when questioned exactly what phony reports and you will propaganda imply. We examined only those solutions in which victims provided a classification to own both term (55%, letter = 162). Observe that the proportion out of victims which considering for example meanings try below during the Tests step 1 (95%) and you can 2 (88%). On nearer examination, i learned that numerous subjects got probably pasted significance off a keen Search on the internet. When you look at the a keen exploratory investigation, i found a statistically significant difference throughout the chances you to players offered a good pasted definition, predicated on Governmental Personality, ? dos (dos, N = 162) = 7.66, p = 0.022. Especially, conservatives (23%) had been more likely than centrists (6%) to provide an excellent pasted meaning, ? 2 (1, Letter = 138) = eight.29, p = 0.007, Otherwise = cuatro.57, 95% CI [step one.29, ], another p values > 0.256. Liberals fell ranging from this type of extremes, that have 13% taking good pasted definition. Because we had been searching for subjects’ own meanings, i excluded this type of doubtful answers of research (n = 27).

We then followed an identical analytical procedure as in Experiments step 1 and you will dos. Table cuatro screens such investigation. Given that dining table reveals, the brand new dimensions of victims whoever responses incorporated the characteristics revealed in Experiment 1 had been similar around the political identity. Particularly, we failed to replicate brand new interested in of Test 1, where people who recognized kept had been expected to give independent significance to your terminology than just people that identified best, ? 2 (step one, N = 90) = 1.42, p = 0.233, every other p thinking > 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-Left 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 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.