Misinformation and Polarization in a High-Choice Media Environment: How Effective Are Political Fact-Checkers?

an article by Michael Hameleers and Toni G. L. A. van der Meer (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands) published in Communication Research Volume 47 Issue 2 (March 2020)

Abstract

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 polarised 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 polarisation.

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.

Full text (PDF 24pp)

Totally fascinating. If I think that the information is correct then I do not bother to fact-check it!

Labels:
fact-checkers, fake_news, misinformation, polarisation, selective_exposure,

---