Recall again our very own second primary question: As to the extent really does governmental character connect with exactly how some one interpret the new identity “fake development”?

Recall again our very own second primary question: As to the extent really does governmental character connect with exactly how some one interpret the new identity “fake development”?

Thinking from the “fake news”

To resolve you to question, i once again examined new responses sufferers gave when expected just what fake development and you will propaganda mean. We reviewed solely those solutions in which subjects given a definition to have often label (55%, letter = 162). Remember that the new proportion off victims whom considering like definitions was less than into the Experiments step 1 (95%) and you may 2 (88%). Upon nearer examination, we found that several subjects got almost certainly pasted meanings regarding a keen Google search. Within the a keen exploratory analysis, i located a mathematically significant find ios hookup apps difference regarding opportunities one users considering a beneficial pasted meaning, centered on Political Character, ? 2 (dos, N = 162) = 7.66, p = 0.022. Specifically, conservatives (23%) was in fact likely to be than simply centrists (6%) to incorporate a good pasted meaning, ? 2 (step 1, Letter = 138) = 7.31, p = 0.007, Otherwise = 4.57, 95% CI [1.31, ], almost every other p values > 0.256. Liberals fell between such extremes, having thirteen% taking a great pasted meaning. While the we were trying to find subjects’ own significance, i omitted these doubtful responses of studies (n = 27).

We then followed the same analytical processes as with Experiments step 1 and you may 2. Desk cuatro displays these studies. Since desk suggests, the fresh new size of victims whoever solutions provided the characteristics described inside the Try step 1 was in fact comparable across the governmental character. Specifically, we failed to imitate new trying to find out of Check out step one, where people that known kept had been likely to promote separate meanings to the words than people who understood best, ? 2 (step one, N = 90) = step one.42, p = 0.233, any other p viewpoints > 0.063.

Even more 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 rActual(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 rPhony(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.

Comments are closed.