Thinking regarding “bogus reports”
To answer one matter, i once again analyzed this new answers victims provided when expected what fake development and you will propaganda suggest. We assessed just those answers in which sufferers considering a classification to own either identity (55%, letter = 162). Remember that the new proportion of sufferers which provided such as definitions was below within the Tests step 1 (95%) and you will dos (88%). Through to closer test, i found that multiple sufferers got almost certainly pasted definitions of a keen Google search. In the an exploratory data, we discover a statistically factor regarding the opportunities one members offered a great pasted definition, based on Political Identification, ? dos (dos, N = 162) = 7.66, p = 0.022. Especially, conservatives (23%) have been more likely than just centrists (6%) to provide good pasted definition, ? dos (1, Letter = 138) = seven.30, p = 0.007, Or = 4.57, 95% CI [1.31, ], some other p values > 0.256. Liberals dropped between such extremes, which have 13% delivering a beneficial pasted definition. Since we were shopping for subjects’ own meanings, i excluded these suspicious responses out of studies (letter = 27).
We adopted an identical analytic process such as Tests step 1 and dos. Table cuatro screens these analysis. Due to the fact desk suggests, the newest size of victims whose answers incorporated the characteristics discussed when you look at the Try out 1 was similar all over political personality. Particularly, i don’t replicate the fresh finding of Try 1, which individuals who known left was in fact more likely to bring separate meanings toward words than simply those who understood best, ? dos (step one, Letter = 90) = step 1.42, p = 0.233, every other p thinking > 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-Left 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, gay hookup sites like craigslist 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 rGenuine(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 rPhony(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.