Providing corrective information can reduce factual misperceptions among the public but it tends to have little effect on people’s underlying attitudes. Our study examines how the impact of misinformation corrections is moderated by media choice. In our experiment, participants are asked to read a news article published by Fox News or MSNBC, each highlighting the positive economic impact of legal immigration in the United States. While the news content is held constant, our treatment manipulates whether participants are allowed to freely choose a media outlet or are randomly assigned. Our results demonstrate the importance of people’s ability to choose: While factual misperceptions are easily corrected regardless of how people gained access to information, subsequent opinion change is conditional on people’s prior willingness to seek out alternative sources. As such, encouraging people to broaden their media diet may be more effective to combat misinformation than disseminating fact-checks alone.
AlesinaA.ArmandoM.StantchevaS. (2019). Immigration and redistribution. National Bureau of Economic Research.
2.
AlthausS. L. (1998). Information effects in collective preferences. American Political Science Review, 92(3), 545–558.
3.
AngristJ. D.PischkeJ. S. (2008). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press.
4.
ArceneauxK.JohnsonM.MurphyC. (2012). Polarized political communication, oppositional media hostility, and selective exposure. The Journal of Politics, 74(1), 174–186.
5.
AronowP. M.BaronJ.PinsonL. (2019). A note on dropping experimental subjects who fail a manipulation check. Political Analysis, 27(4), 572–589.
6.
BartelsL. M. (1996). Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 194–230.
7.
BerinskyA. J. (2017). Rumors and health care reform: Experiments in political misinformation. British Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 241–262.
8.
BerinskyA. J.HuberG. A.LenzG. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.
9.
BowersJ. (2011). Making effects manifest in randomized experiments. In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Greene, J. H. Kuklinski, & A. Lupia (Eds.) Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (pp. 459–480). Cambridge University Press.
10.
CliffordS.JewellR. M.WaggonerP. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology?Research & Politics, 2(4), 2053168015622072.
11.
CliffordS.SheagleyG.PistonS. (2021). Increasing precision without altering treatment effects: Repeated measures designs in survey experiments. American Political Science Review, 115, 1048–1065.
12.
CoppockA. (2019). Generalizing from survey experiments conducted on mechanical Turk: A replication approach. Political Science Research and Methods, 7(3), 613–628.
13.
CoppockA.McClellanO. A. (2019). Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents. Research & Politics, 6(1), 2053168018822174.
14.
De Benedictis-KessnerJ.BaumM. A.BerinskyA. J.YamamotoT. (2019). Persuading the enemy: Estimating the persuasive effects of partisan media with the preference-incorporating choice and assignment design. American Political Science Review, 113(4), 902–916.
15.
FlynnD. J.NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2017). The nature and origins of misperceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology, 38, 127–150.
16.
GainesB. J.KuklinskiJ. H.QuirkP. J.PeytonB.VerkuilenJ. (2007). Same facts, different interpretations: Partisan motivation and opinion on Iraq. The Journal of Politics, 69(4), 957–974.
17.
GelmanA.SternH. (2006). The difference between ‘Significant’ and ‘not significant’ is not itself statistically significant. The American Statistician, 60(4), 328–331.
18.
GreeneW. H. (2008). Econometric analysis. Granite Hill Publishers.
19.
GuessA. M.NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2020). Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), 472–480.
20.
GuilloryJ. J.GeraciL. (2013). Correcting erroneous inferences in memory: The role of source credibility. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(4), 201–209.
21.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J. (2014). Public attitudes toward immigration. Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 225–249.
22.
HopkinsD. J.SidesJ.CitrinJ. (2019). The muted consequences of correct information about immigration. The Journal of Politics, 81(1), 315–320.
23.
HuffC.TingleyD. (2015). “Who Are These People?” evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research & Politics, 2(3), 2053168015604648.
24.
IyengarS.HahnK. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19–39.
25.
KallaJ. L.BroockmanD. E. (2020). Reducing exclusionary attitudes through interpersonal conversation: Evidence from three field experiments. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 410–425.
26.
KennedyR.CliffordS.BurleighT.JewellR.WaggonerP. (2020). The shape of and solutions to the MTurk quality crisis. Political Science Research and Methods, 8(4), 614–629.
27.
KnoxD.YamamotoT.BaumM. A.BerinskyA. J. (2019). Design, identification, and sensitivity analysis for patient preference trials. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 114(528), 1532–1546.
28.
KrupnikovY.LevineA. S. (2014). Cross-sample comparisons and external validity. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1(1), 59–80.
29.
KuklinskiJ. H.QuirkP. J.JeritJ.SchwiederD.RichR. F. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. The Journal of Politics, 62(3), 790–816.
30.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.
31.
LavineH. G.ChristopherD. J.SteenbergenM. R. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. Oxford University Press.
32.
LeeperT. J. (2020). Raising the floor or closing the gap? How media choice and media content impact political knowledge. Political Communication, 37, 719–740.
33.
NyhanB.PorterE.ReiflerJ.WoodT. J. (2020). Taking fact-checks literally but not seriously? The effects of journalistic fact-checking on factual beliefs and candidate favorability. Political Behavior, 42, 939–960.
34.
PennebakerJ. W.RyanL. B.JordanK.BlackburnK. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of Liwc2015. Unpublished Manuscript.
35.
RedlawskD. P.CivettiniA. J. W.EmmersonK. M. (2010). The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever “get it”?Political Psychology, 31(4), 563–593.
36.
StroudN. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556–576.
37.
StroudN. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. Oxford University Press.
38.
StroudN. J.FeldmanL.WojcieszakM.BimberB. (2019). The consequences of forced versus selected political media exposure. Human Communication Research, 45(1), 27–51.
39.
SwireB.BerinskyA. J.LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. H. (2017). Processing political misinformation: Comprehending the Trump phenomenon. Royal Society Open Science, 4(3), 160802.
40.
Swire-ThompsonB.EckerU. K. H.LewandowskyS.BerinskyA. J. (2020). They might be a Liar but they’re my Liar: Source evaluation and the prevalence of misinformation. Political Psychology, 41(1), 21–34.
41.
TaberC. S.LodgeM. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.
42.
TausczikY. R.PennebakerJ. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54.
43.
WaggonerP.KennedyR.CliffordS. (2019). Detecting fraud in online surveys by tracing, scoring, and visualizing IP addresses. The Journal of Open Source Software, 4(37), 1285–5.
WrightC. L.DeFrancescoT.HamiltonC.MachadoL. (2020). The influence of media portrayals of immigration and refugees on consumer attitudes: A experimental design. Howard Journal of Communications, 31(4), 388–410.
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.
