Misinformation and Polarization in a High-Choice Media Environment: How Effective Are Political Fact-Checkers?
Misinformation and Polarization in a High-Choice Media Environment: How Effective Are Political Fact-Checkers?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/0093650218819671
复制
发表时间：
2020-03-01
影响因子：
6.2
通讯作者：
van der Meer, Toni G. L. A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hameleers, Michael;van der Meer, Toni G. L. A.
当今政治信息环境中最根本的变化之一是越来越缺乏沟通的真实性。为了探索这一令人担忧的现象，本研究旨在通过整合三种理论方法来调查政治错误信息的影响：（1）错误信息，（2）两极分化，以及（3）选择性曝光。在本文中，我们研究了事实核查人员在分散的媒体环境中消除两极分化的错误信息方面的作用。我们依赖于两项实验（N = 1,117），在这两项实验中，我们改变了对态度一致或不一致的政治新闻的接触程度，以及后续的事实核查文章揭穿了这些信息。参与者要么被迫看到事实核查员，要么自由选择事实核查员。结果表明，事实核查人员可以取得成功，因为它们（1）降低了与态度一致的政治错误信息的一致性；（2）可以克服政治两极分化。此外，根据问题的不同，事实核查员在确认先前的态度时最有可能被选择，而在不一致时则被避免，这表明选择纠正信息存在确认偏差。选择或避免事实核查人员的自由不会影响政治信仰。
One of the most fundamental changes in today's political information environment is an increasing lack of communicative truthfulness. To explore this worrisome phenomenon, this study aims to investigate the effects of political misinformation by integrating three theoretical approaches: (1) misinformation, (2) polarization, and (3) selective exposure. In this article, we examine the role of fact-checkers in discrediting polarized misinformation in a fragmented media environment. We rely on two experiments (N = 1,117) in which we vary exposure to attitudinal-congruent or incongruent political news and a follow-up fact-check article debunking the information. Participants were either forced to see or free to select a fact-checker. Results show that fact-checkers can be successful as they (1) lower agreement with attitudinally congruent political misinformation and (2) can overcome political polarization. Moreover, dependent on the issue, fact-checkers are most likely to be selected when they confirm prior attitudes and avoided when they are incongruent, indicating a confirmation bias for selecting corrective information. The freedom to select or avoid fact-checkers does not have an impact on political beliefs.