This experiment (N = 300) tests the effects of numbers and math errors in online news articles. Several readers struggled to recall and recognize the numbers and math errors in the articles, but there were significant effects of thinking they saw them—Regardless of experimental condition, readers who noticed (or imagined) numbers reported higher content quality, and readers who noticed (or imagined) errors reported lower content and source quality. Findings are discussed through the Heuristic-Systematic Processing Model, and implications for media trust are explored.
AllenM.PreissR. W.GayleB. M. (2006). Meta-analytic examination of the base-rate fallacy. Communication Research Reports, 23(1), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/17464090500535863
2.
AndersonC. W. (2015). Between the unique and the pattern: Historical tensions in our understanding of quantitative journalism. Digital Journalism, 3(3), 349–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.976407
AppelgrenE.LindénC. G.van DalenA.(Eds.). (2019). Data journalism research: Studying a maturing field [Special issue]. Digital Journalism, 7(9). https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1685899
5.
AppelmanA.HettingaK. E. (2019). Error message: Creation of a revised codebook for analysis of newspaper corrections. Newspaper Research Journal, 40(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739532918814452
6.
AppelmanA.SchmierbachM. (2018). Make no mistake? Exploring cognitive and perceptual effects of grammatical errors in news articles. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(4), 930–947. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699017736040
7.
AppelmanA.SchmierbachM. (2022). Coverage of public opinion polls: Journalists’ perceptions and readers’ responses. Journalism Practice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2022.2058064
8.
AppelmanA.SundarS. S. (2016). Measuring message credibility: Construction and validation of an exclusive scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(1), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015606057
9.
AronowP. M.BaronJ.PinsonL. (2019). A note on dropping experimental subjects who fail a manipulation check. Political Analysis, 27(4), 572–589. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.5
10.
AumanA.AldermanB. B. (1996). How editors and educators see skills needed for editing. Newspaper Research Journal, 17(1-2), 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/073953299601700102
ChaikenS. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766. https://doi.org/https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
14.
ChaikenS.LibermanA.EaglyA. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In UlemanJ. S.BarghJ. A. (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). Guilford Press.
15.
ChenS.ChaikenS. (1999). The Heuristic-Systematic Model in its broader context. In ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96). The Guilford Press.
16.
CoddingtonM. (2015). Clarifying journalism’s quantitative turn: A typology for evaluating data journalism, computational journalism, and computer-assisted reporting. Digital Journalism, 3(3), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.976400
17.
CohenS. (2014). Numbers in the newsroom: Using math and statistics in news (2nd ed.). Investigative Reporters & Editors, Inc.
18.
CurtinP. A.MaierS. R. (2001). Numbers in the newsroom: A qualitative examination of a quantitative challenge. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(4), 720–738. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900107800407
19.
DuY. R.ZhuL.ChengB. K. L. (2019). Are numbers not trusted in a “post-truth” era? An experiment on the impact of data on news credibility. Electronic News, 13(4), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1931243119883839
20.
FeeF.RussialJ.AumanA. (2003). Profs, professionals agree about students’ editing skills. Newspaper Research Journal, 24(3), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/073953290302400302
GondweG.RoweE.SomeE. (2021). Does numeracy in digital journalism increase story believability?: Experiments comparing audience perceptions from the US, Zambia, Tanzania. Journal of Digital Social Research, 3(2), 70–88. https://doi.org/10.33621/jdsr.v3i2.73
23.
HahnD. (2023). The effect of statistics on enjoyment and perceived credibility in sports media. Communication & Sport, 11(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479521998395
LinkE.HenkeJ.MöhringW. (2021). Credibility and enjoyment through data? Effects of statistical information and data visualizations on message credibility and reading experience. Journalism Studies, 22(5), 575–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.1889398
26.
LoosenW.ReimerJ.De Silva-SchmidtF. (2020). Data-driven reporting: An on-going (r)evolution? An analysis of projects nominated for the Data Journalism Awards 2013–2016. Journalism, 21(9), 1246–1263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917735691
MaierS. R. (2003b). Numeracy in the newsroom: A case study of mathematical competence and confidence. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(4), 921–936. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900308000411
30.
MartinJ. D.MartinsR. J. (2018). Outsourced credibility? A quasi-experimental study of corrections at newspapers pre-and post-outsourcing of copy editing. Journalism Studies, 19(2), 247–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1178594
McCroskeyJ. C.TevenJ. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376464
33.
MerleP. F.CallisonC.CumminsR. G. (2014). How arithmetic aptitude impacts attention, memory, and evaluation of static versus dynamic infographics in online news: An eye-tracking study. Electronic News, 8(3), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1931243114557595
MutzD. C.ReevesB. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051452
36.
NemethN.SandersC. (2009). Number of corrections increase at two national newspapers. Newspaper Research Journal, 30(3), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/073953290903000307
NguyenA.Lugo-OcandoJ.(Eds.). (2016). Data and statistics in journalism and journalism education [Special issue]. Journalism, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884915593234
39.
O’KeefeD. J. (2003). Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, 13(3), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00292.x
40.
OliverM. B.WeaverJ. B.IIISargentS. L. (2000). An examination of factors related to sex differences in enjoyment of sad films. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(2), 282–300. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4402_8
41.
ÖrnebringH.MelladoC. (2018). Valued skills among journalists: An exploratory comparison of six European nations. Journalism, 19(4), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884916657514
42.
PjesivacI.GeidnerN.MillerL. E. (2017). Using infographics in television news: Effects of television graphics on information recall about sexually transmitted diseases. Electronic News, 11(3), 166–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1931243116683753
SundarS. S. (1999). Exploring receivers’ criteria for perception of print and online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(2), 373–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909907600213
45.
VulteeF. (2015). Audience perceptions of editing quality: Assessing traditional news routines in the digital age. Digital Journalism, 3(6), 832–849. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.995938
46.
ZillmannD.BrosiusH. B. (2012). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues (eBook edition). Routledge.
47.
ZillmannD.CallisonC.GibsonR. (2009). Quantitative media literacy: Individual differences in dealing with numbers in the news. Media Psychology, 12(4), 394–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260903287275
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.
