Values from the “fake news”
To resolve you to definitely matter, i once again examined the fresh solutions subjects provided whenever asked what phony news and you will propaganda imply. I assessed just those responses in which subjects offered a description to own sometimes identity (55%, letter = 162). Note that the brand new proportion regarding victims whom provided such as for example definitions was less than within the Tests step 1 (95%) and you can 2 (88%). Upon closer examination, we learned that multiple subjects had most likely pasted significance regarding a keen Internet search. In an exploratory analysis, we located a mathematically factor in the opportunities that participants offered a pasted definition, centered on Governmental Identification, ? dos (2, Letter = 162) = seven.66, p = 0.022. Especially, conservatives (23%) was likely to be than centrists (6%) to include a beneficial pasted meaning, ? dos (1, Letter = 138) = 7.30, p = 0.007, Otherwise = cuatro.57, 95% CI [1.31, ], another p philosophy > 0.256. Liberals fell anywhere between these extremes, with 13% bringing a good pasted meaning. While the we were selecting subjects’ individual meanings, i excluded this type of doubtful responses of studies (letter = 27).
I used an equivalent analytical procedure like in Tests 1 and 2. Dining table 4 displays these types of analysis. Given that dining table suggests, brand new proportions of victims whoever answers provided the features described during the Try 1 had been comparable across the governmental character. Specifically, we did not simulate the looking away from Test step one, whereby people that understood remaining have been expected to render separate significance towards terminology than just those who recognized correct, ? dos (step 1, Letter = 90) = 1.42, p = 0.233, any kind of p opinions > 0.063.
A lot 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 https://hookupdaddy.net/lesbian-hookup/ 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 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.