Philosophy in the “bogus reports”
To respond to that concern, i once again analyzed brand new answers sufferers gave whenever questioned just what fake news and you will propaganda suggest. I assessed only those responses where sufferers offered a description having either identity (55%, letter = 162). Observe that the ratio from sufferers exactly who provided particularly significance is actually below for the Studies step one (95%) and you will dos (88%). Upon nearer test, i discovered that several sufferers had most likely pasted definitions regarding an enthusiastic Google search. In an exploratory investigation, i receive a statistically significant difference on opportunities one to members considering a beneficial pasted definition, centered on Governmental Personality, ? 2 (2, N = 162) = seven.66, p = 0.022. Particularly, conservatives (23%) were probably be than simply centrists (6%) to include a beneficial pasted meaning, ? 2 (step 1, N = 138) = seven.31, p = 0.007, Otherwise = 4.57, 95% CI [step one.29, ], all other p philosophy > 0.256. Liberals fell ranging from these types of extremes, having 13% delivering a pasted definition. Given that we had been in search of subjects’ own meanings, i excluded these types of skeptical solutions of data (n = 27).
I followed an equivalent analytical process such as Studies step one and dos. Table cuatro screens these research. Given that dining table suggests, the brand new proportions of subjects whose solutions incorporated the characteristics explained in the Test 1 was indeed equivalent around the political identification. Specifically, we failed to imitate brand new looking for of Test 1, whereby people who recognized left was in fact prone to promote independent definitions into the terms and conditions than simply people that recognized correct, ? 2 (1, N = 90) = step one.42, p = 0.233, another p viewpoints > 0.063.
Extra 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, 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 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.