Taking Fact-Checks Literally But Not Seriously? The Effects of Journalistic Fact-Checking on Factual Beliefs and Candidate Favorability
Taking Fact-Checks Literally But Not Seriously? The Effects of Journalistic Fact-Checking on Factual Beliefs and Candidate Favorability
复制标题
从字面上但不认真地进行事实核查？
DOI：
10.2139/ssrn.2995128
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Thomas J. Wood
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Nyhan;Ethan Porter;Jason Reifler;Thomas J. Wood
公民愿意接受新闻对他们支持的候选人的误导性说法的事实核查，并更新他们对这些候选人的态度吗？之前的研究得出了关于接触反态度信息的影响的相互矛盾的结论。随着事实核查变得更加突出，因此值得研究受访者如何回应对政客的事实核查--这个问题对于理解这种新闻形式对选举的影响具有重要影响。我们给出了在2016年竞选期间进行的两项实验的结果，这两项实验测试了对唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)在全国代表大会演讲和大选辩论期间发表的声明进行的现实新闻事实核查的效果。这些信息提高了受访者的事实信念的准确性，甚至在他的支持者中也是如此，但对对特朗普的态度没有明显影响。这些结果表明，新闻事实核查可以减少误解，但对候选人评估或投票选择的影响往往微乎其微。
Are citizens willing to accept journalistic fact-checks of misleading claims from candidates they support and to update their attitudes about those candidates? Previous studies have reached conflicting conclusions about the effects of exposure to counter-attitudinal information. As fact-checking has become more prominent, it is therefore worth examining how respondents respond to fact-checks of politicians—a question with important implications for understanding the effects of this journalistic format on elections. We present results to two experiments conducted during the 2016 campaign that test the effects of exposure to realistic journalistic fact-checks of claims made by Donald Trump during his convention speech and a general election debate. These messages improved the accuracy of respondents’ factual beliefs, even among his supporters, but had no measurable effect on attitudes toward Trump. These results suggest that journalistic fact-checks can reduce misperceptions but often have minimal effects on candidate evaluations or vote choice.