skip to main content


Title: On the Efficacy of Accuracy Prompts Across Partisan Lines: An Adversarial Collaboration

The spread of misinformation is a pressing societal challenge. Prior work shows that shifting attention to accuracy increases the quality of people’s news-sharing decisions. However, researchers disagree on whether accuracy-prompt interventions work for U.S. Republicans/conservatives and whether partisanship moderates the effect. In this preregistered adversarial collaboration, we tested this question using a multiverse meta-analysis ( k = 21; N = 27,828). In all 70 models, accuracy prompts improved sharing discernment among Republicans/conservatives. We observed significant partisan moderation for single-headline “evaluation” treatments (a critical test for one research team) such that the effect was stronger among Democrats than Republicans. However, this moderation was not consistently robust across different operationalizations of ideology/partisanship, exclusion criteria, or treatment type. Overall, we observed significant partisan moderation in 50% of specifications (all of which were considered critical for the other team). We discuss the conditions under which moderation is observed and offer interpretations.

 
more » « less
NSF-PAR ID:
10508297
Author(s) / Creator(s):
 ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  
Publisher / Repository:
SAGE Publications
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Psychological Science
Volume:
35
Issue:
4
ISSN:
0956-7976
Format(s):
Medium: X Size: p. 435-450
Size(s):
p. 435-450
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Online misinformation is believed to have contributed to vaccine hesitancy during the Covid-19 pandemic, highlighting concerns about social media’s destabilizing role in public life. Previous research identified a link between political conservatism and sharing misinformation; however, it is not clear how partisanship affects how much misinformation people see online. As a result, we do not know whether partisanship drives exposure to misinformation or people selectively share misinformation despite being exposed to factual content. To address this question, we study Twitter discussions about the Covid-19 pandemic, classifying users along the political and factual spectrum based on the information sources they share. In addition, we quantify exposure through retweet interactions. We uncover partisan asymmetries in the exposure to misinformation: conservatives are more likely to see and share misinformation, and while users’ connections expose them to ideologically congruent content, the interactions between political and factual dimensions create conditions for the highly polarized users—hardline conservatives and liberals—to amplify misinformation. Overall, however, misinformation receives less attention than factual content and political moderates, the bulk of users in our sample, help filter out misinformation. Identifying the extent of polarization and how political ideology exacerbates misinformation can help public health experts and policy makers improve their messaging. 
    more » « less
  2. Background: Distrust and partisan identity are theorized to undermine health communications. We examined the role of these factors on the efficacy of discussion groups intended to promote vaccine uptake. Method: W e analyzed survey data from unvaccinated Facebook users (N = 371) living in the US between January and April 2022. Participants were randomly assigned to Facebook discussion groups (intervention) or referred to Facebook ’s COVID-19 Information Center (control). We used Analysis of Covariance to test if the intervention was more effective at changing vaccination intentions and beliefs compared to the control in subgroups based on participants ’ p artisan identity, political views, and information trust views. Results: W e found a significant interaction between the intervention and trust in public health institutions (PHIs) for improving intentions to vaccinate (P = .04), intentions to encourage others to vaccinate ( P = .03), and vaccine confidence beliefs ( P = .01). Among participants who trusted PHIs, those in the intervention had higher posttest intentions to vaccinate ( P = .008) and intentions to encourage others to vaccinate ( P = .002) compared to the control. Among non-conservatives, participants in the intervention had higher posttest intentions to vaccinate ( P = .048). The intervention was more effective at improving intentions to encourage others to vaccinate within the subgroups of Republicans ( P = .03), conservatives (P = .02), and participants who distrusted government ( P = .02). Conclusions: Facebook discussion groups were more effective for people who trusted PHIs and non-conservatives. Health communicators may need to segment health messaging and develop strategies around trust views. 
    more » « less
  3. Budak, Ceren ; Cha, Meeyoung ; Quercia, Daniele ; Xie, Lexing (Ed.)
    We present the first large-scale measurement study of cross-partisan discussions between liberals and conservatives on YouTube, based on a dataset of 274,241 political videos from 973 channels of US partisan media and 134M comments from 9.3M users over eight months in 2020. Contrary to a simple narrative of echo chambers, we find a surprising amount of cross-talk: most users with at least 10 comments posted at least once on both left-leaning and right-leaning YouTube channels. Cross-talk, however, was not symmetric. Based on the user leaning predicted by a hierarchical attention model, we find that conservatives were much more likely to comment on left-leaning videos than liberals on right-leaning videos. Secondly, YouTube's comment sorting algorithm made cross-partisan comments modestly less visible; for example, comments from conservatives made up 26.3% of all comments on left-leaning videos but just over 20% of the comments were in the top 20 positions. Lastly, using Perspective API's toxicity score as a measure of quality, we find that conservatives were not significantly more toxic than liberals when users directly commented on the content of videos. However, when users replied to comments from other users, we find that cross-partisan replies were more toxic than co-partisan replies on both left-leaning and right-leaning videos, with cross-partisan replies being especially toxic on the replier's home turf. 
    more » « less
  4. Abstract

    Insight into one’s own cognitive abilities is one important aspect of metacognition. Whether this insight varies between groups when discerning true and false information has yet to be examined. We investigated whether demographics like political partisanship and age were associated with discernment ability, metacognitive efficiency, and response bias for true and false news. Participants rated the veracity of true and false news headlines and provided confidence ratings for each judgment. We found that Democrats and older adults were better at discerning true and false news than Republicans and younger adults. However, all demographic groups maintained good insight into their discernment ability. Although Republicans were less accurate than Democrats, they slightly outperformed Democrats in metacognitive efficiency when a politically equated item set was used. These results suggest that even when individuals mistake misinformation to be true, they are aware that they might be wrong.

     
    more » « less
  5. Abstract

    With growing affective polarization in the United States, partisanship is increasingly an impediment to cooperation in political settings. But does partisanship also affect behavior in nonpolitical settings? We show evidence that it does, demonstrating its effect on economic outcomes across a range of experiments in real‐world environments. A field experiment in an online labor market indicates that workers request systematically lower reservation wages when the employer shares their political stance, reflecting a preference to work for co‐partisans. We conduct two field experiments with consumers and find a preference for dealing with co‐partisans, especially among those with strong partisan attachments. Finally, via a population‐based, incentivized survey experiment, we find that the influence of political considerations on economic choices extends also to weaker partisans. Whereas earlier studies show the political consequences of polarization in American politics, our findings suggest that partisanship spills over beyond the political, shaping cooperation in everyday economic behavior.

     
    more » « less