Swipe to navigate through the articles of this issue
The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09528-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
We thank Kim Gross, John Pfaff, and D.J. Flynn for comments and Kyle Dropp for fielding Study 1. This research received funding support from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (Grant Agreement No. 682758). We also received support from the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University. All errors are our own.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Are citizens willing to accept journalistic fact-checks of misleading claims from candidates they support and to update their attitudes about those candidates? Previous studies have reached conflicting conclusions about the effects of exposure to counter-attitudinal information. As fact-checking has become more prominent, it is therefore worth examining how respondents respond to fact-checks of politicians—a question with important implications for understanding the effects of this journalistic format on elections. We present results to two experiments conducted during the 2016 campaign that test the effects of exposure to realistic journalistic fact-checks of claims made by Donald Trump during his convention speech and a general election debate. These messages improved the accuracy of respondents’ factual beliefs, even among his supporters, but had no measurable effect on attitudes toward Trump. These results suggest that journalistic fact-checks can reduce misperceptions but often have minimal effects on candidate evaluations or vote choice.
Please log in to get access to this content
To get access to this content you need the following product:
BBC. (2016). Post-truth’ declared word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries. November 16, 2016. Retrieved February 6, 2017, from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37995600.
Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36(2), 235–262. CrossRef
Chan, M. P. S., Jones, C. R., Jamieson, K. H., & Albarracín, D. (2017) Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological science, 28(11), 1531–1546 CrossRef
Flynn, D. J. (2016). The scope and correlates of political misperceptions in the mass public. Unpublished paper, Dartmouth College.
Funk, C. L. (1999). Bringing the candidate into models of candidate evaluation. The Journal of Politics, 61(3), 700–720. CrossRef
Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Peyton, B., & Verkuilen, J. (2007). Same facts, different interpretations: Partisan motivation and opinion on Iraq. Journal of Politics, 69(4), 957–974. CrossRef
Garrett, R. K., Nisbet, E. C., & Lynch, E. K. (2013). Undermining the corrective effects of media-based political fact checking? The role of contextual cues and naïve theory. Journal of Communication, 63(4), 617–637. CrossRef
Graves, L. (2016). Deciding what’s true: The rise of political fact-checking in American journalism. New York: Columbia University Press. CrossRef
Gross, K., Porter E., & Wood T. J. (2018) Identifying media effects through low-cost, multiwave field experiments. Political Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1514447.
Guess, A., & Coppock, A. (2018). Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. British Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123418000327
Hill, S. J. (2017). Learning together slowly: Bayesian learning about political facts. The Journal of Politics, 79(4), 1403–1418. CrossRef
Hochschild, J. L., & Einstein, K. L. (2015). Do facts matter? Information and misinformation in American politics. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. CrossRef
Jamieson, K. H. (2015). Implications of the demise of ‘Fact’ in political discourse. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 159(1), 66–84.
Jarman, J. W. (2016). Motivated to ignore the facts: The inability of fact-checking to promote truth in the public sphere. In J. Hannan (Ed.), Truth in the public sphere. London: Lexington Books.
Khanna, K., & Sood, G. (2018). Motivated responding in studies of factual learning. Political Behavior, 40(1), 79–101. CrossRef
Krupnikov, Y., & Levine, A. S. (2014). Cross-sample comparisons and external validity. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1(1), 59–80. CrossRef
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. CrossRef
Lenz, G. S. (2012). Follow the leader? How voters respond to politicians’ performance and policies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. CrossRef
Lim, C. (2018). Checking how fact-checkers check. Research & Politics, 5(3), 2053168018786848. CrossRef
Marietta, M., Barker, D. C., & Bowser, T. (2015). Fact-checking polarized politics: Does the fact-check industry provide consistent guidance on disputed realities? The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics, 13(4), 577–596. CrossRef
Molden, D. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). Motivated thinking. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge & handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Montgomery, J. M., Nyhan, B., & Torres, M. (2018). How conditioning on posttreatment variables can ruin your experiment and what to do about it. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 760–775. CrossRef
Mummolo, J., & Peterson E. (2018) Demand effects in survey experiments: An empirical assessment. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2956147.
National Public Radio. (2016). Fact check: Trump And clinton debate for the first time. September 26, 2016. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from http://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495115346/fact-check-first-presidential-debate.
New York Times. (2016). Our fact checks of the first debate. September 26th, 2016. Retrieved July 27, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/us/politics/fact-check-debate.html.
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330. CrossRef
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(3), 628–640. CrossRef
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (N.d.). Do people actually learn from fact-checking? Evidence from a longitudinal study during the 2014 campaign.” Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved June 28, 2017, from http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/fact-checking-effects.pdf.
Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Ubel, P. A. (2013). The hazards of correcting myths about health care reform. Medical Care, 51(2), 127–132. CrossRef
Pierce, P. A. (1993). Political sophistication and the use of candidate traits in candidate evaluation.
Politico. (2016). Trump wrong on Michigan job losses. September 26, 2016. Retrieved November 11, 2017, from https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presidential-debate-fact-check/2016/09/trump-wrong-on-michigan-job-losses-228707.
Porter, E., Wood, T. J., & Kirby, D. (2018). Sex trafficking, Russian infiltration, birth certificates, and pedophilia: A survey experiment correcting fake news. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(5), 304–331.
Rahn, W. M., Aldrich, J. H., Borgida, E., & Sullivan, J. L. (1990). A social cognitive model of candidate appraisal. In J. A. Ferejohn & J. H. Kuklinski (Eds.), Information and democratic processes. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
Schleifer, T. (2016). Paul Manafort doubts FBI statistics after agency spared Hillary. CNN, July 12, 2016. Retrieved February 13, 2017, from http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/politics/paul-manafort-fbi-statistics-hillary-clinton/.
Spivak, C. (2011). The fact-checking explosion. American Journalism Review, 32, 38–43.
Sullivan, E., & Day, C. (2016). AP FACT CHECK: Crime stats don’t back Trump’s dire view. Associated Press, July 13, 2016. Retrieved October 22, 2018, from https://apnews.com/3e132f145e0c44cf96cb7f4fd448b34a.
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. CrossRef
Uscinski, J., & Butler, R. (2013). The epistemology of fact checking. Critical Review, 25(2), 162–180. CrossRef
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), 699–719. CrossRef
Wintersieck, A. L. (2017). Debating the truth: The impact of fact-checking during electoral debates. American Politics Research, 45(2), 304–331. CrossRef
Wood, T., & Porter, E. (2018). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior.
Young, D., Shannon, J. K. H. P., & Goldring, A. (2017). Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1531–1546. CrossRef
Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
- Taking Fact-Checks Literally But Not Seriously? The Effects of Journalistic Fact-Checking on Factual Beliefs and Candidate Favorability
Thomas J. Wood
- Publication date
- Springer US
Print ISSN: 0190-9320
Electronic ISSN: 1573-6687
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta