Is exposure to false information necessary for misbelief? In this article, we consider the possibility that certain individuals hold misinformed beliefs without encountering misinformation, thus questioning for whom exposure to “fake news” is most deleterious. Using a pre-registered experiment on a diverse sample of 1079 US respondents, we find that the young, those with low information literacy, and those with high trust in government tend to hold mistaken beliefs, even without exposure to misinformation. Because these groups are already misinformed, eventual exposure to fake news does little to influence their misperceptions. Instead, misinformation exposure affects the elderly, those with high information literacy, and those with low trust in mainstream media the most. These results suggest that research focused on correcting misperceptions should avoid studying how certain characteristics correlate with misbelief only in misinformation’s presence.
AllenJHowlandBMobiusM, et al. (2020) Evaluating the fake news problem at the SCAE of the information ecosystem. Science Advances6: eaay3539.
2.
AltayS (2022) How effective are interventions against misinformation? Available at: https://psyarxiv.com/sm3vk/
3.
AnspachNM (2017) The new personal influence: how our Facebook friends influence the news we read. Political Communication34(4): 590–606.
4.
AnspachNMCarlsonTN (2020) What to believe? Social media commentary and belief in misinformation. Political Behavior42(3): 697–718.
5.
AnspachNMJenningsJTArceneauxK (2019) A little bit of knowledge: Facebook’s news feed and self-perceptions of knowledge. Research & Politics6(1): 1–9.
6.
ArceneauxKJohnsonM (2013) Changing Minds or Changing Channels? Media Effects in the Era of Expanded Choice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
7.
AronowPKallaJOrrL, et al. (2020) Evidence of rising rates of inattentiveness on lucid in 2020. SocArXiv. 15 September 15. DOI: 10.31235/osf.io/8sbe4.
8.
Association of College Research Libraries (2016) Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.
9.
BerinskyA (2004) Silent Voices. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.
BrashierNMSchacterDL (2020) Aging in an era of fake news. Current Directions in Psychological Science29(3): 316–323.
11.
ChiaSCLuFSunY (2021) Tracking the influence of misinformation on elderly people’s perceptions and intention to accept COVID-19 vaccines. Health Communication. Epub ahead of print 23 September. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2021.1980251.
12.
ConversePE (1964) The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In: ApterDE (ed.) Ideological and Discontent. New York: Free Press, pp. 206–261.
13.
CoppockAMcClellanOA (2019) Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents. Research & Politics6(1): 1–14.
14.
De ConinckDFrissenTMatthijsK, et al. (2021) Beliefs in conspiracy theories and misinformation about COVID-19: comparative perspectives on the role of anxiety, depression and exposure to and trust in information sources. Frontiers in Psychology12: 646394.
15.
Delli CarpiniMXKeeterS (1996) What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16.
EvansJStBTBarstonJLPollardP (1983) On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning. Memory & Cognition11(3): 295–306.
17.
FeezellJT (2018) Agenda setting through social media: the importance of incidental news exposure and social filtering in the digital era. Political Research Quarterly71(2): 482–494.
18.
FletcherRNielsenRK (2018) Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis. New Media & Society20(7): 2450–2468.
19.
FlynnDJNyhanBReiflerJ (2017) The nature and origins of misperceptions: understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics: nature and origins of misperceptions. Advances in Political Psychology38: 127–150.
20.
Gil de ZúñigaHWeeksBArdèvol-AbreuA (2017) Effects of the news-finds-me perception in communication: social media use implications for news seeking and learning about politics. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication22(3): 105–123.
21.
GuessANaglerJTuckerJ (2019) Less than you think: prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances5(1): 1–8.
22.
GuessAMNyhanBReiflerJ (2020) Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election. Nature Human Behaviour4(5): 472–480.
23.
KamCDTrusslerMJ (2017) At the nexus of observational and experimental research: theory, specification, and analysis of experiments with heterogeneous treatment effects. Political Behavior39(4): 789–815.
24.
KarnowskiVKümpelASLeonhardL, et al. (2017) From incidental news exposure to news engagement. How perceptions of the news post and news usage patterns influence engagement with news articles encountered on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior76: 42–50.
25.
KundaZ (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin108(3): 480–498.
26.
LewandowskySEckerUKHSeifertCM, et al. (2012) Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest13(3): 106–131.
27.
LiaoQVFuW-T (2014) Age differences in credibility judgment of online health information. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction21(1): 1–23.
28.
LoftusEFPickrellJE (1995) The formation of false memories. Psychiatric Annals25(12): 720–725.
29.
LucaMMungerKNaglerJ, et al. (2022) You won’t believe our results! But they might: heterogeneity in beliefs about the accuracy of online media. Journal of Experimental Political Science9: 267–277.
30.
LyonsBAMontgomeryJMGuessAM, et al. (2021) Overconfidence in news judgments is associated with false news susceptibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118(23): 1–10.
31.
MariSGildeZúñigaHSuerdemA, et al. (2022) Conspiracy theories and institutional trust: examining the role of uncertainty avoidance and active social media use. Political Psychology43(2): 277–296.
32.
MillerJMSaundersKLFarhartCE (2016) Conspiracy endorsement as motivated reasoning: the moderating roles of political knowledge and trust. American Journal of Political Science60(4): 824–844.
MontgomeryJMNyhanBTorresM (2018) How conditioning on posttreatment variables can ruin your experiment and what to do about it. American Journal of Political Science62(3): 760–775.
36.
MungerKGopalINaglerJ, et al. (2021) Accessibility and generalizability: are social media effects moderated by age or digital literacy?Research & Politics8(2): 1–16.
37.
NyhanBReiflerJ (2010) When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior32(2): 303–330.
38.
O’ConnorLGRadcliffCJGedeonJA (2001) Assessing information literacy skills: developing a standardized instrument for institutional and longitudinal measurement. In: ThompsonHA (ed.) Crossing the Divide: Proceedings of the Tenth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, pp. 163–174.
PriorM (2005) News vs. entertainment: how increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science49(3): 577–592.
41.
SeifertCM (2014) The continued influence effect: the persistence of misinformation in memory and reasoning following correction. In: RappDNBraaschJLG (eds) Processing Inaccurate Information: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives from Cognitive Science and the Educational Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 39–71.
42.
SettleJ (2018) Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
TsfatiYCappellaJN (2003) Do people watch what they do not trust?: exploring the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Communication Research30(5): 504–529.
47.
UscinskiJEndersAMKlofstadC, et al. (2022) Cause and effect: on the antecedents and consequences of conspiracy theory beliefs. Current Opinion in Psychology47: 101364.
48.
WalterNTukachinskyR (2020) 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 Research47(2): 155–177.
49.
WeeksBELaneDSKimDH, et al. (2017) Incidental exposure, selective exposure, and political information sharing: integrating online exposure patterns and expression on social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication22(6): 363–379.
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.
