We test three competing theoretical accounts invoked to explain the rise and spread of political (mis)information. We compare the ideological values hypothesis (people prefer news that bolster their values and worldviews); the confirmation bias hypothesis (people prefer news that fit their preexisting stereotypical knowledge); and the political identity hypothesis (people prefer news that allow them to believe positive things about political ingroup members and negative things about political outgroup members). In three experiments (N = 1,420), participants from the United States read news describing actions perpetrated by their political ingroup or outgroup. Consistent with the political identity hypothesis, Democrats and Republicans were both more likely to believe news about the value-upholding behavior of their ingroup or the value-undermining behavior of their outgroup. Belief was positively correlated with willingness to share on social media in all conditions, but Republicans were more likely to believe and want to share apolitical fake news.
AhlerD. J.SoodG. (2018). The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. The Journal of Politics, 80, 964–981. https://doi.org/10.1086/697253
2.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison Wesley.
3.
BataillerC.BrannonS. M.TeasP. E.GawronskiB. (2021). A signal detection approach to understanding the identification of fake news. Perspectives on Psychological Science. Epub ahead of print 15 July 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620986135
4.
BerinskyA. J.HuberG. A.LenzG. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057
5.
BradyW. J.CrockettM. J.Van BavelJ. J. (2020). The MAD model of moral contagion: The role of motivation, attention and design in the spread of moralized content online. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15, 978–1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620917336
6.
BradyW. J.WillsJ. A.JostJ. T.TuckerJ. A.Van BavelJ. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 114, 7313–7318. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618923114
7.
BrandtM. J.EvansA. M.CrawfordJ. T. (2015). The unthinking or confident extremist? Political extremists are more likely than moderates to reject experimenter-generated anchors. Psychological Science, 26, 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614559730
8.
BrandtM. J.ReynaC.ChambersJ. R.CrawfordJ. T.WetherellG. (2014). The ideological-conflict hypothesis: Intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413510932
9.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980
CikaraM.Van BavelJ. J.IngbretsenZ. A.LauT. (2017). Decoding “us” and “them”: Neural representations of generalized group concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 621–631. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000287
12.
CliffordS.JewellR. M.WaggonerP. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology?Research & Politics, 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015622072
13.
CohenG. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 808–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808
DevineP. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5
17.
DittoP. H.LiuB. S.ClarkC. J.WojcikS. P.ChenE. E.GradyR. H.CelnikerJ. B.ZingerJ. F. (2018). At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617746796
FedericoC. M.EkstromP. D. (2018). The political self: How identity aligns preferences with epistemic needs. Psychological Science, 29, 901–913. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617748679
20.
FinkelE. J.BailC. A.CikaraM.DittoP. H.IyengarS.KlarS.MasonL.McGrathM. C.NyhanB.RandD. G.SkitkaL. J.TuckerJ. A.Van BavelJ. J.WangC. S.DruckmanJ. N. (2020). Political sectarianism in America. Science, 370, 533–536. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1715
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.KolevaS.MotylM.IyerR.WojcikS. P.DittoP. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In DevineP.PlantA. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 55–130). Academic Press.
24.
GrahamJ.NosekB. A.HaidtJ. (2012). The moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives: Exaggeration of differences across the political spectrum. PLoS One, 7, Article e50092. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050092
25.
GuessA.NaglerJ.TuckerJ. (2019). Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances, 5, Article eaaau4586. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4586
26.
HarrisE. A.Van BavelJ. J. (2021). Preregistered replication of “Feeling superior is a bipartisan issue: Extremity (not direction) of political views predicts perceived belief superiority.”Psychological Science, 32(3): 451–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620968792
27.
HawkinsC. B.NosekB. A. (2012). Motivated independence? Implicit party identity predicts political judgments among self-proclaimed independents. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1437–1452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212452313
28.
HuddyL. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22, 127–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00230
29.
JostJ. T. (2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology: Presidential address. Political Psychology, 38, 167–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12407
30.
JostJ. T.BasevichE.DicksonE. S.NoorbaloochiS. (2016). The place of values in a world of politics: Personality, motivation, and ideology. In BroschT.SanderD. (Eds.), Handbook of value: Perspectives from economics, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, and sociology (pp. 351–374). Oxford University Press.
31.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
32.
JostJ. T.SterlingJ.SternC. (2017). Getting closure on conservatism, or the politics of epistemic and existential motivation. In KopetzC.FishbachA. (Eds.), The motivation–cognition interface. From the lab to the real world: A Festschrift in honor of Arie W. Kruglanski (pp. 56–87). Psychology Press.
33.
KahanD. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection: An experimental study. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407–424. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2182588
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
38.
LazerD. M. J.BaumM. A.BenklerY.BerinskyA. J.GreenhillK. M.MenczerF.MetzgerM. J.NyhanB.PennycookG.RothschildD.SchundsonM.SlomanS. A.SunsteinC. R.ThorsonE. A.WattsD. J.ZittrainJ. L. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359, 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998
39.
LeachC. W.ZebelS.VliekM. L. W.PennekampS. F.DoosjeB.SpearsR. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 144–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144
40.
LeeperT. J.SlothuusR. (2014). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Political Psychology, 35, 129–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12164
41.
LeesJ.CikaraM. (2019). Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive intergroup contexts. Nature Human Behaviour. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0766-4
42.
LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. H.SeifertC. M.SchwarzN.CookJ. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018
43.
MaioG. R.OlsonJ. M. (1998). Values as truisms: Evidence and implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 294–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.294
44.
MajorB.KaiserC. R.O’BrienL. T.McCoyS. K. (2007). Perceived discrimination as worldview threat or worldview confirmation: Implications for self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1068–1086. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1068
45.
MoslehM.PennycookG.RandD. G. (2020). Self-reported willingness to share political news articles in online surveys correlates with actual sharing on Twitter. PLoS One, 15, Article e0228882. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228882
46.
NickersonR. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
47.
PennycookG.CannonT. D.RandD. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 1865–1880. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000465
48.
PennycookG.RandD. G. (2018a). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
49.
PennycookG.RandD. G. (2018b). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3197692
50.
PennycookG.RandD. G. (2019). Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 116, 2521–2526. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1806781116
51.
PettsJ.BrooksC. (2006). Expert conceptualisations of the role of lay knowledge in environmental decision making: Challenges for deliberative democracy. Environment and Planning A, 38, 1045–1059. https://doi.org/10.1068/a37373
52.
RahnW. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 472–496. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111381
53.
RiggleE. D.OttatiV. C.WyerR. S.KuklinskiJ.SchwarzN. (1992). Bases of political judgments: The role of stereotypic and nonstereotypic information. Political Behavior, 14, 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00993509
RoozenbeekJ.van der LindenS. (2019). Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Palgrave Communications, 5, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0279-9
56.
RoozenbeekJ.van der LindenS.NygrenT. (2020). Prebunking interventions based on “inoculation” theory can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 1. https://doi.org/10.37016//mr-2020-008
57.
RosenblattA.GreenbergJ.SolomonS.PyszczynskiT.LyonD. (1989). Evidence for terror management theory: I. The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who violate or uphold cultural values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 681–690. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.681
SchwartzS. H. (2003). A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations. Questionnaire Package of the European Social Survey, 259, 261.
60.
SchwartzS. H.BilskyW. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878–891. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.878
61.
SchwartzS. H.CieciuchJ.VecchioneM.DavidovE.FischerR.BeierleinC.RamosA.VerkasaloM.LönngvistJ.-E.DemirutkuK.Dirliem-GumusO.KontyM. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029393
SterlingJ.JostJ. T.PennycookG. (2016). Are neoliberals more susceptible to bullshit?Judgment and Decision Making, 11, 352–360. https://doi.org/016-37874-005
65.
SterniskoA.CichockaA.Van BavelJ. J. (2020). The dark side of social movements: Social identity, non-conformity, and the lure of conspiracy theories. Current Opinion in Psychology, 35, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.02.007
66.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In JostJ.T.SidaniusJ. (Eds.), Key readings in social psychology (pp. 276–293). Psychology Press.
67.
TonerK.LearyM. R.AsherM. W.Jongman-SerenoK. P. (2013). Feeling superior is a bipartisan issue: Extremity (not direction) of political views predicts perceived belief superiority. Psychological Science, 24, 2454–2462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613494848
68.
TownsendS. S. M.MajorB.SawyerP. J.MendesW. B. (2010). Can the absence of prejudice be more threatening than its presence? It depends on one’s worldview. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 933–947. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020434
69.
Van BavelJ. J.HarrisE.ParnametsP.RathjeS.DoellK. C.TuckerJ. (2021). Political psychology in the digital (mis)information age: A model of news belief and sharing. Social Issues and Policy Review, 15, 84–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12077
70.
Van BavelJ. J.PereiraA. (2018). The partisan brain: An identity-based model of political belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.004
71.
Van ProoijenJ.-W.KrouwelA. P. M. (2017). Extreme political beliefs predict dogmatic intolerance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 292–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616671403
WasonP. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470216008416717
