Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Numerous studies have shown fact-checks can debunk misinformation and improve perceptions of reality surrounding a specific political issue. We examine whether fact-checks might also boost epistemic political efficacy (EPE), which is confidence in one’s ability they can perceive reality surrounding political issues in general. Using a survey experiment (N = 1,139), we find discrediting misinformation with a fact-check increases accuracy in issue perceptions and, indirectly, EPE. However, fact-checking’s direct effect on EPE is negative, suggesting fact-checks generally help individuals perform an immediate cognitive task—deciding which aspects of a political issue are true—while weakening confidence in task performance.

Keywords

fact-checking political misinformation epistemic political efficacy (EPE)fake news vaccination

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Acock

A. C.

(2013). Discovering structural equation modeling using Stata. Stata Press.

Allcott

Gentzkow

(2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211

Amazeen

M. A.

(2015). Revisiting the epistemology of fact-checking. Critical Review, 27(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2014.993890

Amazon Mechanical Turk. (2019). Get started with Amazon Mechanical Turk. https://www.mturk.com/worker

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura

(1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. The American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.

Benegal

S. D.

Scruggs

L. A.

(2018). Correcting misinformation about climate change: The impact of partisanship in an experimental setting. Climatic Change, 148(1–2), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2192-4

Bentley

J. W.

(2018). Challenges with Amazon Mechanical Turk research in accounting. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2924876

10.

Berinsky

A. J.

(2017). Rumors and health care reform: Experiments in political misinformation. British Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 241–262. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123415000186

11.

Berinsky

A. J.

Huber

G. A.

Lenz

G. S.

(2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057

12.

Bode

Vraga

E. K.

(2015). In related news, that was wrong: The correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 619–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12166

13.

Bode

Vraga

E. K.

(2018). See something, say something: Correction of global health misinformation on social media. Health Communication, 33(9), 1131–1140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1331312

14.

Buhrmester

M. D.

Talaifar

Gosling

S. D.

(2018). An evaluation of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, its rapid rise, and its effective use. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617706516

15.

Chan

M. P. S.

Jones

C. R.

Hall Jamieson

Albarracín

(2017). Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1531–1546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617714579

16.

Chan

(2008, November). Liberal pranksters hand out Times spoof. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/nyregion/nj-immigration-ice.html?rref=nyregion&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=N.Y.%2FRegion&action=keypress&region=FixedRight&pgtype=Blogs

17.

Dunning

(2011). The Dunning-Kruger effect: On being ignorant of one’s own ignorance. In Olson

Zanna

M. P.

(Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 44, pp. 247–296). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00005-6

18.

Farman

Riffe

Kifer

Leder Elder

(2018). Finding the truth in politics: An empirical validation of the epistemic political efficacy concept. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 26(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2018.1398162

19.

Flynn

D. J.

Nyhan

Reifler

(2017). The nature and origins of misperceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology, 38, 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12394

20.

Funke

(2019, January). Fake newsprint copies—And a fake Washington Post home page—Are making the rounds. Poynter. https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2019/a-fake-washington-post-home-page-and-fake-newsprint-copies-are-making-the-rounds/

21.

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12038

22.

Graves

(2016). Deciding what’s true: The rise of political fact-checking in American journalism. Columbia University Press.

23.

Graves

Nyhan

Reifler

(2016). Understanding innovations in journalistic practice: A field experiment examining motivations for fact-checking. Journal of Communication, 66(1), 102–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12198

24.

Guess

Nyhan

Reifler

(2018). Selective exposure to misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. European Research Council. http://www.ask-force.org/web/Fundamentalists/Guess-Selective-Exposure-to-Misinformation-Evidence-Presidential-Campaign-2018.pdf

25.

Hamilton

L. C.

Hartter

Saito

(2015). Trust in scientists on climate change and vaccines. SAGE Open, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015602752

26.

Knight Foundation. (2018). Perceived accuracy and bias in the news media: A Gallup/Knight Foundation survey. https://kf-site-production.s3.amazonaws.com/publications/pdfs/000/000/255/original/KnightFoundation_AccuracyandBias_Report_FINAL.pdf

27.

Kruger

Dunning

(1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121

28.

Lazer

D. M.

Baum

M. A.

Benkler

Berinsky

A. J.

Greenhill

K. M.

Menczer

Metzger

M. J.

Nyhan

Pennycook

Rothschild

Schudson

Sloman

S. A.

Sunstein

C. R.

Thorson

E. A.

Watts

D. J.

Zittrain

J. L.

(2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998

29.

Lewandowsky

Ecker

U. K. H.

Seifert

C. M.

Schwarz

Cook

(2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018

30.

Lewandowsky

Gignac

G. E.

Oberauer

(2013). The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLOS ONE, 8(10), Article e75637. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075637

31.

Nyhan

Reifler

(2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2

32.

Nyhan

Reifler

(2015). Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine, 33(3), 459–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.11.017

33.

Nyhan

Reifler

Richey

Freed

G. L.

(2014). Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics, 133(4), e835–e842. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2365

34.

Nyhan

Reifler

Ubel

P. A.

(2013). The hazards of correcting myths about health care reform. Medical Care, 51(2), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e318279486b

35.

Pew Research Center. (2015). Americans, politics and science issues. Chapter 5: Public views about biomedical issues. http://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/01/chapter-5-public-views-about-biomedical-issues/

36.

Pingree

R. J.

(2011). Effects of unresolved factual disputes in the news on epistemic political efficacy. Journal of Communication, 61(1), 22–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01525.x

37.

Pingree

R. J.

Brossard

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), 615–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2013.821491

38.

Pingree

R. J.

Hill

McLeod

D. M.

(2013). Distinguishing effects of game framing and journalistic adjudication on cynicism and epistemic political efficacy. Communication Research, 40(2), 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212439205

39.

Pingree

R. J.

Scholl

R. M.

Quenette

A. M.

(2012). Effects of postdebate coverage on spontaneous policy reasoning. Journal of Communication, 62(4), 643–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01656.x

40.

Sheehan

K. B.

(2018). Crowdsourcing research: Data collection with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 140–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1342043

41.

Shin

Thorson

(2017). Partisan selective sharing: The biased diffusion of fact-checking messages on social media. Journal of Communication, 67(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12284

42.

Simmons

J. P.

Nelson

L. D.

Simonsohn

(2013, January). Life after p-hacking [Paper presentation]. Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, New Orleans, LA, United States. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2205186

43.

Thorson

(2016). Belief echoes: The persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Communication, 33(3), 460–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1102187

44.

van der Linden

Leiserowitz

Rosenthal

Maibach

. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1(2), 1600008. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008

45.

van der Linden

Maibach

Cook

Leiserowitz

Lewandowsky

. (2017). Inoculating against misinformation. Science, 358(6367), 1141–1142. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar4533

46.

VanVoorhis

C. W.

Morgan

B. L.

(2007). Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3(2), 43–50.

47.

Vraga

E. K.

Bode

(2017). Using expert sources to correct health misinformation in social media. Science Communication, 39(5), 621–645. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017731776

48.

Vraga

E. K.

Bode

(2018). I do not believe you: How providing a source corrects health misperceptions across social media platforms. Information, Communication & Society, 21(10), 1337–1353. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1313883

49.

Walter

Murphy

S. T.

(2018). How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. Communication Monographs, 85(3), 423–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2018.1467564

50.

Walter

Tukachinsky

(2019). A meta-analytic examination of the continued influence of misinformation in the face of correction: How powerful is it, why does it happen, and how to stop it? Communication Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219854600

51.

Wang

(2018, February 22). A 2018 survey of fact-checking projects around the world finds a booming field, with at least 149 dedicated initiatives. Nieman Lab. http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/02/a-2018-survey-of-fact-checking-projects-around-the-world-finds-a-booming-field-with-at-least-149-dedicated-initiatives/

52.

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12164

53.

Wineburg

McGrew

Breakstone

Ortega

(2016, November). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Stanford History Education Group. https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:fv751yt5934/SHEG%20Evaluating%20Information%20Online.pdf

54.

Winter

(2019). CHECKIPADDRESSES: Stata module to detect fraud in online surveys by tracing and scoring IP addresses. https://econpapers.repec.org/software/bocbocode/s458578.htm

55.

Young

D. G.

Jamieson

K. H.

Poulsen

Goldring

(2018). Fact-checking effectiveness as a function of format and tone: Evaluating FactCheck.org and FlackCheck.org. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(1), 49–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699017710453

Effects of Fact-Checking Political Misinformation on Perceptual Accuracy and Epistemic Political Efficacy

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References