Keep in mind again our 2nd first concern: About what the total amount do political personality apply at exactly how some body understand the fresh term “fake development”? Beliefs regarding “fake reports” To resolve you to question, i again examined this new responses subjects provided when questioned exactly what bogus reports and propaganda imply. We
Beliefs regarding “fake reports”
To resolve you to question, i again examined this new responses subjects provided when questioned exactly what bogus reports and propaganda imply. We reviewed solely those solutions in which subjects considering a description having either identity (55%, letter = 162). Keep in mind that the newest proportion regarding subjects which provided for example significance are less than inside the Studies 1 (95%) and 2 (88%). Through to closer test, we discovered that multiple victims had more than likely pasted significance off a keen Internet search. In an enthusiastic exploratory investigation, we found a mathematically factor from the possibilities that people provided good pasted meaning, predicated on Political Personality, ? dos (2, Letter = 162) = eight.66, p = 0.022. Especially, conservatives (23%) have been more likely than just centrists (6%) to add an effective pasted definition, ? 2 (1, N = 138) = seven.31, p = 0.007, Or = 4.57, 95% CI [step one.30, ], every other p opinions > 0.256. Liberals dropped anywhere between these types of extremes, that have 13% providing a great pasted definition. Just like the we were wanting subjects’ very own meanings, we excluded these doubtful solutions of studies (letter = 27).
I observed the same analytic techniques as with Tests 1 and you will dos apps to hookup with black girls. Table cuatro displays such analysis. Because dining table suggests, the new proportions of sufferers whoever responses integrated the characteristics demonstrated for the Experiment 1 were similar round the governmental character. Particularly, we didn’t imitate new interested in off Try out step one, for which individuals who known remaining have been very likely to promote separate significance into the terms and conditions than simply those who known proper, ? dos (step one, Letter = 90) = step 1.42, p = 0.233, any kind of p beliefs > 0.063.
Most exploratory analyses
We now turn to our additional exploratory analyses specific to this experiment. First, we examine the extent to which people’s reported familiarity with our news sources varies according to their political identification. Liberals and conservatives iliar with different sources, and we know that familiarity can act as a guide in determining what is true (Alter and Oppenheimer 2009). To examine this idea, we ran a two-way Ailiarity, treating Political Identification as a between-subjects factor with three levels (Left, Center, Right) and News Source as a within-subject factor with 42 levels (i.e., Table 1). This analysis showed that the influence of political identification on subjects’ familiarity ratings differed across the sources: F(2, 82) = 2.11, p < 0.001, ? 2 = 0.01. Closer inspection revealed that conservatives reported higher familiarity than liberals for most news sources, with centrists falling in-between (Fs range 6.62-, MRight-Remaining range 0.62-1.39, all p values < 0.002). The exceptions-that is, where familiarity ratings were not meaningfully different across political identification-were the media giants: The BBC, CNN, Fox News, Google News, The Guardian, The New York Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Yahoo News, and CBS News.
We also predicted that familiarity with our news sources would be positively associated with real news ratings and negatively associated with fake news ratings. To test this idea, we calculated-for each news source-correlations between familiarity and real news ratings, and familiarity and fake news ratings. In line with our prediction, we found that familiarity was positively associated with real news ratings across all news sources: maximum rActual(292) = 0.48, 95% CI [0.39, 0.57]; minimum rReal(292) = 0.15, 95% CI [0.04, 0.26]. But in contrast with what we predicted, we found that familiarity was also positively associated with fake news ratings, for two out of every three news sources: maximum rBogus(292) = 0.34, 95% CI [0.23, 0.44]; minimum rFake(292) = 0.12, 95% CI [0.01, 0.23]. Only one of the remaining 14 sources-CNN-was negatively correlated, rFake(292) = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.26, -0.03]; all other CIs crossed zero. Taken together, these exploratory results, while tentative, might suggest that familiarity with a news source leads to a bias in which people agree with any claim about that source.
Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *