Does truth matter to voters? The effects of correcting political misinformation in an Australian sample

Michael J. Aird, Ullrich K.H. Ecker, Briony Swire, Adam J. Berinsky, Stephan Lewandowsky

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

In the 'post-truth era', political fact-checking has become an issue of considerable significance. A recent study in the context of the 2016 US election found that fact-checks of statements by Donald Trump changed participants' beliefs about those statements-regardless of whether participants supported Trump-but not their feelings towards Trump or voting intentions. However, the study balanced corrections of inaccurate statements with an equal number of affirmations of accurate statements. Therefore, the null effect of fact-checks on participants' voting intentions and feelings may have arisen because of this artificially created balance. Moreover, Trump's statements were not contrasted with statements from an opposing politician, and Trump's perceived veracity was not measured. The present study (N = 370) examined the issue further, manipulating the ratio of corrections to affirmations, and using Australian politicians (and Australian participants) from both sides of the political spectrum. We hypothesized that fact-checks would correct beliefs and that fact-checks would affect voters' support (i.e. voting intentions, feelings and perceptions of veracity), but only when corrections outnumbered affirmations. Both hypotheses were supported, suggesting that a politician's veracity does sometimes matter to voters. The effects of fact-checking were similar on both sides of the political spectrum, suggesting little motivated reasoning in the processing of fact-checks.

Original languageEnglish
Article number180593
Number of pages14
JournalRoyal Society Open Science
Volume5
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2018

Fingerprint

voting
politician
election

Cite this

@article{39fe8dc16cce4ffebb791823049fa922,
title = "Does truth matter to voters? The effects of correcting political misinformation in an Australian sample",
abstract = "In the 'post-truth era', political fact-checking has become an issue of considerable significance. A recent study in the context of the 2016 US election found that fact-checks of statements by Donald Trump changed participants' beliefs about those statements-regardless of whether participants supported Trump-but not their feelings towards Trump or voting intentions. However, the study balanced corrections of inaccurate statements with an equal number of affirmations of accurate statements. Therefore, the null effect of fact-checks on participants' voting intentions and feelings may have arisen because of this artificially created balance. Moreover, Trump's statements were not contrasted with statements from an opposing politician, and Trump's perceived veracity was not measured. The present study (N = 370) examined the issue further, manipulating the ratio of corrections to affirmations, and using Australian politicians (and Australian participants) from both sides of the political spectrum. We hypothesized that fact-checks would correct beliefs and that fact-checks would affect voters' support (i.e. voting intentions, feelings and perceptions of veracity), but only when corrections outnumbered affirmations. Both hypotheses were supported, suggesting that a politician's veracity does sometimes matter to voters. The effects of fact-checking were similar on both sides of the political spectrum, suggesting little motivated reasoning in the processing of fact-checks.",
keywords = "Belief change, Fact-checking, Misconceptions, Misinformation, Political attitudes, Voting behaviour",
author = "Aird, {Michael J.} and Ecker, {Ullrich K.H.} and Briony Swire and Berinsky, {Adam J.} and Stephan Lewandowsky",
year = "2018",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1098/rsos.180593",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
journal = "Royal Society Open Science",
issn = "2054-5703",
publisher = "Royal Soc",
number = "12",

}

Does truth matter to voters? The effects of correcting political misinformation in an Australian sample. / Aird, Michael J.; Ecker, Ullrich K.H.; Swire, Briony; Berinsky, Adam J.; Lewandowsky, Stephan.

In: Royal Society Open Science, Vol. 5, No. 12, 180593, 01.12.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does truth matter to voters? The effects of correcting political misinformation in an Australian sample

AU - Aird, Michael J.

AU - Ecker, Ullrich K.H.

AU - Swire, Briony

AU - Berinsky, Adam J.

AU - Lewandowsky, Stephan

PY - 2018/12/1

Y1 - 2018/12/1

N2 - In the 'post-truth era', political fact-checking has become an issue of considerable significance. A recent study in the context of the 2016 US election found that fact-checks of statements by Donald Trump changed participants' beliefs about those statements-regardless of whether participants supported Trump-but not their feelings towards Trump or voting intentions. However, the study balanced corrections of inaccurate statements with an equal number of affirmations of accurate statements. Therefore, the null effect of fact-checks on participants' voting intentions and feelings may have arisen because of this artificially created balance. Moreover, Trump's statements were not contrasted with statements from an opposing politician, and Trump's perceived veracity was not measured. The present study (N = 370) examined the issue further, manipulating the ratio of corrections to affirmations, and using Australian politicians (and Australian participants) from both sides of the political spectrum. We hypothesized that fact-checks would correct beliefs and that fact-checks would affect voters' support (i.e. voting intentions, feelings and perceptions of veracity), but only when corrections outnumbered affirmations. Both hypotheses were supported, suggesting that a politician's veracity does sometimes matter to voters. The effects of fact-checking were similar on both sides of the political spectrum, suggesting little motivated reasoning in the processing of fact-checks.

AB - In the 'post-truth era', political fact-checking has become an issue of considerable significance. A recent study in the context of the 2016 US election found that fact-checks of statements by Donald Trump changed participants' beliefs about those statements-regardless of whether participants supported Trump-but not their feelings towards Trump or voting intentions. However, the study balanced corrections of inaccurate statements with an equal number of affirmations of accurate statements. Therefore, the null effect of fact-checks on participants' voting intentions and feelings may have arisen because of this artificially created balance. Moreover, Trump's statements were not contrasted with statements from an opposing politician, and Trump's perceived veracity was not measured. The present study (N = 370) examined the issue further, manipulating the ratio of corrections to affirmations, and using Australian politicians (and Australian participants) from both sides of the political spectrum. We hypothesized that fact-checks would correct beliefs and that fact-checks would affect voters' support (i.e. voting intentions, feelings and perceptions of veracity), but only when corrections outnumbered affirmations. Both hypotheses were supported, suggesting that a politician's veracity does sometimes matter to voters. The effects of fact-checking were similar on both sides of the political spectrum, suggesting little motivated reasoning in the processing of fact-checks.

KW - Belief change

KW - Fact-checking

KW - Misconceptions

KW - Misinformation

KW - Political attitudes

KW - Voting behaviour

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059668219&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1098/rsos.180593

DO - 10.1098/rsos.180593

M3 - Article

VL - 5

JO - Royal Society Open Science

JF - Royal Society Open Science

SN - 2054-5703

IS - 12

M1 - 180593

ER -