Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023-6
Predicting Audience Verification Intention: The Impact of Partisanship,Source,Importance,and Information Familiarity on Willingness to Verify Headlines
This study employed a 2 × 3 × 2 experiment in the United States to understand how headlines trigger willingness to verify information, manipulating partisan leaning, source credibility, and factuality. Based on evolutionary psychology, we also explored how perceived importance and information familiarity influence willingness to verify information for accuracy or confirmation of preexisting beliefs. Findings show no differences between accuracy (truth-seeking) and confirmation motivations, both driven mainly by importance. Conservatives report less intent to verify for both motivations and rely more strongly on authority cues (source credibility), while liberals rely on prior familiarity with content. Implications for news literacy efforts are discussed.
AdornoT. W.Frenkel-BrunswikE.LevinsonD. J.SanfordR. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Harper Brothers.
2.
AltemeyerB. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. Jossey-Bass.
3.
BarrettL.PolletT. V.StulpG. (2014). From computers to cultivation: Reconceptualizing evolutionary psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00867
4.
BlankJ. M.ShawD. (2015). Does partisanship shape attitudes toward science and public policy? the case for ideology and religion. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214554756
5.
BouchardT. (2009). Authoritarianism, religiousness, and conservatism: Is “obedience to authority” the explanation for their clustering, universality and evolution? In VolandE.SchienfenhövelW. (Eds.), The biological evolution of religious mind and behavior (pp. 165–180). The Frontiers Collection.
6.
CacioppoJ. T.BerntsonG. G.NorrisC. J.GollanJ. K. (2011). The evaluative space model. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 1, 1–50.
DiamantopoulosA.SarstedtM.FuchsC.WilczynskiP.KaiserS. (2012). Guidelines for choosing between multiitem and single-item scales for construct measurement: A predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 434–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0300-3
9.
DiekerhofE.BakkerP. (2012). To check or not to check: An exploratory study on source checking by Dutch journalists. Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies, 1(2), 241–253.
10.
DuriezB. (2003). Religiosity and conservatism revisited: Relating a new religiosity measure to the two main conservative political ideologies. Psychological Reports, 92(2), 533–539. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.92.2.533-539
11.
EdgerlyS. (2017). Making sense and drawing lines: Young adults and the mixing of news and entertainment. Journalism Studies, 18(8), 1052–1069. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2015.1100522
12.
EdgerlyS.MourãoR. R.ThorsonE.ThamS. M. (2019). When do audiences verify? How perceptions about message and source influence audience verification of news headlines. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(1), 52–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699019864680
13.
EdgerlyS.VragaE. K.BodeL.ThorsonK.ThorsonE. (2018). New media, new relationship to participation? A closer look at youth news repertoires and political participation. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(1), 192–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699017706928
14.
GrossmannM.HopkinsD. A. (2016). Asymmetric politics: Ideological republicans and group interest democrats. Oxford University Press.
15.
HermidaA. (2015). Nothing but the truth: Redrafting the journalistic boundary of verification. In CarlsonM.LewisS. C. (Eds.), Boundaries of journalism: Professionalism, practices and participation (pp. 21–36). Routledge.
16.
HimmelsteinJ. L.McRae (1984). Social conservatism, new republicans, and the 1980 election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48(3), 592–605. https://doi.org/10.1086/268860
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
20.
KamhawiR.GrabeM. E. (2008). Engaging the female audience: An evolutionary psychology perspective on gendered responses to news valence frames. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(1), 33–51.
21.
KesslerT.CohrsJ. C. (2008). The evolution of authoritarian processes: Fostering cooperation in large-scale groups. Group Dynamics, 12(1), 73–84. http://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.12.1.73
KovachB.RosenstielT. (2021). The elements of journalism, revised and updated 4th edition: What newspeople should know and the public should expect. Crown Publishing Group.
LudekeS. G.KlitgaardC. N.VitriolJ. (2018). Comprehensively-measured authoritarianism does predict vote choice: The importance of authoritarianism’s facets, ideological sorting, and the particular candidate. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.019
29.
MercierH. (2016). The argumentative theory: Predictions and empirical evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 689–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.001
30.
MercierH.LandemoreH. (2012). Reasoning is for arguing: Understanding the successes and failures of deliberation. Political Psychology, 33(2), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00873.x
31.
MercierH.SperberD. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74.
32.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.MeddersR. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60, 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x
33.
MirelsH. L.DeanJ. B. (2006). Right-wing authoritarianism, attitude salience, and beliefs about matters of fact. Political Psychology, 27(6), 839–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00540.x
34.
MooneyC. (2012). The Republican brain: The science of why they deny science—And reality. John Wiley & Sons.
35.
MourãoR. R.BrownD. K. (2022). Black lives matter coverage: How protest news frames and attitudinal change affect social media engagement. Digital Journalism, 10(4), 626–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1931900
36.
NickersonR. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.
37.
NisbetE. C.CooperK. E.GarrettR. K. (2015). The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 36–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214555474
38.
NorrisC. J.GollanJ.BerntsonG. G.CacioppoJ. T. (2010). The current status of research on the structure of evaluative space. Biological Psychology, 84(3), 422–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.03.011
39.
PatrikiosS. (2008). American republican religion? Disentangling the causal link between religion and politics in the US. Political Behavior, 30(3), 367–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9053-1
40.
PelzM. L.SmidtC. E. (2015). Generational conversion? The role of religiosity in the politics of evangelicals. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 54(2), 380–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12186
41.
PetersenM. B. (2015). Evolutionary political psychology. In BussD. (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology. John Wiley.
42.
RobertsonC. T.MourãoR. R.ThorsonE. (2020). Who uses fact-checking sites? The impact of demographics, political antecedents, and media use on fact-checking site awareness, attitudes, and behavior. The International Journal of Press/politics, 25(2), 217–237.
43.
ScaccoJ. M.MuddimanA. (2020). The curiosity effect: Information seeking in the contemporary news environment. New Media & Society, 22(3), 429–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819863408
44.
ShapiroI.BrinC.Bédard-BrûléI.MychajlowyczK. (2013). Verification as a strategic ritual: How journalists retrospectively describe processes for ensuring accuracy. Journalism Practice, 7(6), 657–673. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.765638
ShoemakerP. J. (1996). Hardwired for news: Using biological and cultural evolution to explain the surveillance function. Journal of Communication, 46(3), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01487.x
TambiniD. (2017). Fake news: Public policy responses. Media policy brief 20. Media Policy Project, London School of Economics and Political Science. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/73015/
49.
TandocE. C.LingR.WestlundO.DuffyA.GohD.Zheng WeiL. (2018). Audiences’ acts of authentication in the age of fake news: A conceptual framework. New Media & Society, 20(8), 2745–2763. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817731756
50.
ThorsonK. (2020). Attracting the news: Algorithms, platforms, and reframing incidental exposure. Journalism, 21(8), 1067–1082. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920915352
51.
ThorsonK.CotterK.MedeirosM.PakC. (2019). Algorithmic inference, political interest, and exposure to news and politics on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society, 1, 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1642934
52.
TullyM.VragaE. K.SmithsonA.-B. (2020). News media literacy, perceptions of bias, and interpretation of news. Journalism, 21(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918805262
WenzelA. (2019). To verify or to disengage: Coping with “fake news” and ambiguity. International Journal of Communication, 13(0), 19.
55.
WomickJ.RothmundT.AzevedoF.KingL. A.JostJ. T. (2019). Group-based dominance and authoritarian aggression predict support for Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(5), 643–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618778290
56.
YoungD. G. (2020). Irony and outrage: The polarized landscape of rage, fear, and laughter in the United States. Oxford University Press.
57.
YoungD. G.BagozziB. E.GoldringA.PoulsenS.DrouinE. (2019). Psychology, political ideology, and humor appreciation: Why is satire so liberal?Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 8(2), 134–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000157
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
