Considerable evidence exists that Americans possess not only low levels of political knowledge but also relatively uninformed—and sometimes misinformed—opinions on policy matters. Many recent studies focus on whether informational treatments have immediate effects on citizens’ factual beliefs and opinions about policy, but less is known about whether such treatments have enduring effects. Using a three-wave panel experiment, we assess the immediate and enduring effects of factual information provision on factual beliefs and opinion of the Affordable Care Act. We find a relatively persistent effect of information provision on accuracy of factual beliefs, but only an ephemeral shift in opinion, which typically drifts back to its pretreatment state within a few weeks. Our findings have implications for the understanding of citizen learning and opinion change, as well as ongoing scholarly debates about how long-lasting the effects of (experimental) interventions are.
BarabasJ.JeritJ. (2010). Are survey experiments externally valid?American Political Science Review, 104, 226-242.
2.
BartelsL. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24, 117-150.
3.
BartelsL. M. (2008). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
BerinskyA. J. (2017). Rumors and health care reform: Experiments in political misinformation. British Journal of Political Science, 47, 241-262.
5.
BerinskyA. J.HuberG. A.LenzG. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351-368.
6.
BuhrmesterM. D.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5.
7.
CarminesE. G.StimsonJ. A. (1980). The two faces of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 74, 78-91.
8.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2010). Dynamic public opinion: Communication effects over time. American Political Science Review, 104, 663-680.
9.
CobbM. D.NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2013). Beliefs don’t always persevere: How political figures are punished when positive information about them is discredited. Political Psychology, 34, 307-326.
10.
CoppockA. (2018). Generalizing from survey experiments conducted on Mechanical Turk: A replication approach. Political Science Research and Methods. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/psrm.2018.10
11.
DahlR. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
Delli CarpiniM. X.KeeterS. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
DixonG. N.McKeeverB. W.HoltonA. E.ClarkeC.EoscoG. (2015). The power of a picture: Overcoming scientific misinformation by communicating weight-of-evidence information with visual exemplars. Journal of Communication, 65, 589-595.
14.
DowlingC. M.MillerM. G. (2015). Can information alter perceptions about women’s chances of winning office? Evidence from a panel study. Politics & Gender, 11, 55-88.
15.
DruckmanJ. N.FeinJ.LeeperT. J. (2012). A source of bias in public opinion stability. American Political Science Review, 106, 430-454.
16.
FinkelS. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
17.
GainesB. J.KuklinskiJ. H.QuirkP. J. (2007). The logic of the survey experiment reexamined. Political Analysis, 15, 1-20.
18.
GainesB. J.KuklinskiJ. H.QuirkP. J.PeytonB.VerkuilenJ. (2007). Same facts, different interpretations: Partisan motivation and opinion on Iraq. The Journal of Politics, 69, 957-974.
19.
GarrettR. K.NisbetE. C.LynchE. K. (2013). Undermining the corrective effects of media-based political fact checking? The role of contextual cues and naïve theory. Journal of Communication, 63, 617-637.
20.
GerberA. S.GimpelJ. G.GreenD. P.ShawD. R. (2011). How large and long-lasting are the persuasive effects of televised campaign ads? Results from a randomized field experiment. American Political Science Review, 105, 135-150.
21.
GilensM. (1999). Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
22.
GilensM. (2001). Political ignorance and collective policy preferences. American Political Science Review, 95, 379-396.
23.
GreenwaldA. G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. In GreenwaldA. G.BrockT. C.OstromT. M. (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 147-170). New York, NY: Academic Press.
24.
GuessA.CoppockA. (2018). Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. British Journal of Political Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/S0007123418000327
25.
HartP. S.NisbetE. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39, 701-723.
26.
HendersonM.HillygusD. S. (2011). The dynamics of health care opinion, 2008-2010: Partisanship, self-interest, and racial resentment. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 36, 945-960.
27.
HillS. J.LoJ.VavreckL.ZallerJ. (2013). How quickly we forget: The duration of persuasion effects from mass communication. Political Communication, 30, 521-547.
28.
HuffC.TingleyD. (2015). “Who are these people?” Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research & Politics, 2, 1-12.
29.
JacobsonG. C. (2010). Perception, memory, and partisan polarization on the Iraq War. Political Science Quarterly, 125, 31-56.
30.
JeritJ.BarabasJ. (2012). Partisan perceptual bias and the information environment. The Journal of Politics, 74, 672-684.
31.
JeritJ.BarabasJ.BolsenT. (2006). Citizens, knowledge, and the information environment. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 266-282.
32.
KrupnikovY.LevineA. S. (2014). Cross-sample comparisons and external validity. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1, 59-80.
33.
KuklinskiJ. H.QuirkP. J.JeritJ.SchwiederD.RichR. F. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. The Journal of Politics, 62, 790-816.
34.
KuklinskiJ. H.QuirkP. J.SchwiederD.RichR. F. (1998). “Just the facts, ma’am”: Political facts and public opinion. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 560, 143-154.
35.
KullS.RamsayC.LewisE. (2003). Misperceptions, the media, and the Iraq War. Political Science Quarterly, 118, 569-598.
36.
LodgeM.SteenbergenM. R.BrauS. (1995). The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 89, 302-326.
37.
LodgeM.TaberC. (2013). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38.
McGuireW. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In LindzeyG.AronsonE. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 233-246). New York, NY: Random House.
39.
MullinixK. J.LeeperT. J.DruckmanJ. N.FreeseJ. (2015). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2, 109-138.
40.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303-330.
41.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2013). Which corrections work? Research results and practice recommendations (New America Foundation research paper series). Washington, DC: New America Foundation.
42.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2015). Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine, 33, 459-464.
43.
OttatiV. C.WyerR. S.Jr. (1990). The cognitive mediators of political choice: Toward a comprehensive model of political information processing. In FerejohnJ. A.KuklinskiJ. H. (Eds.), Information and democratic processes (pp. 186-216). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
44.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ.IpeirotisP. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411-419.
45.
PasekJ.SoodG.KrosnickJ. A. (2015). Misinformed about the Affordable Care Act? Leveraging certainty to assess the prevalence of misperceptions. Journal of Communication, 65, 660-673.
46.
SchaffnerB. F.RocheC. (2017). Misinformation and motivated reasoning: Responses to economic news in a politicized environment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81, 86-110.
47.
SchuelerB. E.WestM. E. (2016). Sticker shock: How information affects citizen support for public school funding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80, 90-113.
48.
SidesJ. (2016). Stories or science? Facts, frames, and policy attitudes. American Politics Research, 44, 387-414.
49.
SwireB.BerinskyA. J.LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. H. (2017). Processing political misinformation: Comprehending the Trump phenomenon. Royal Society Open Science, 4, 160802. doi:10.1098/rsos.160802
50.
TaberC.LodgeM. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769.
51.
ThorsonE. (2016). Belief echoes: The persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Communication, 33, 460-480.
52.
WeinbergJ.FreeseJ.McElhattanD. (2014). Comparing data characteristics and results of an online factorial survey between a population-based and a crowdsource-recruited sample. Sociological Science, 1, 292-310.
53.
WeisbergH.KrosnickJ. A.BowenB. D. (1996). An introduction to survey research, polling, and data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
54.
WoodT. J.PorterE. (2018). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y
55.
ZallerJ. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
