1,721,084 research outputs found
Replication Data for: "Populist Referendum: Was Brexit an Expression of Nativist and Anti-Elitist Sentiment?"
No full textNecessary replication files for Iakhnis, Rathbun, Reifler, and Scotto (IRRS) article "Populist Referendum: Was Brexit an Expression of Nativist and Anti-Elitist Sentiment?" published in Research and Politic
Correction to: Partisanship and older Americans’ engagement with dubious political news
No full textThis is a correction to: Public Opinion Quarterly, Volume 88, Issue 3, Fall 2024, Pages 962–990, https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfae04
Replication Data for: "Populist Referendum: Was Brexit an Expression of Nativist and Anti-Elitist Sentiment?"
No full textNecessary replication files for Iakhnis, Rathbun, Reifler, and Scotto (IRRS) article "Populist Referendum: Was Brexit an Expression of Nativist and Anti-Elitist Sentiment?" published in Research and Politic
The roles of information deficits and identity threat in the prevalence of misperceptions
No full textWhy do so many Americans hold misperceptions? We examine two factors that contribute to the prevalence of these beliefs. First, presenting correct information should reduce misperceptions, especially if provided in a clear and compelling format. We therefore test the effect of graphical information, which may be especially effective in facilitating belief updating about changes in quantities over time. In some cases, though, people may reject information because it threatens their worldview or self-concept – a mechanism that can be revealed by affirming individuals’ self-worth, which could make them more willing to acknowledge uncomfortable facts. We test both mechanisms jointly. In three experiments, we find that providing information in graphical form reduces misperceptions. A third study shows that this effect is greater than for equivalent textual information. Our findings for self-affirmation are more equivocal. We find limited evidence that self-affirmation can help diminish misperceptions when no other information is provided, but it does not consistently increase willingness to accept corrective information as previous research in social psychology would suggest. These results suggest that misperceptions are caused by a lack of information as well as psychological threat, but that these factors may interact in ways that are not yet well understood
When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions
No full textAn extensive literature addresses citizen ignorance, but very little research focuses on misperceptions. Can these false or unsubstantiated beliefs about politics be corrected? Previous studies have not tested the efficacy of corrections in a realistic format. We conducted four experiments in which subjects read mock news articles that included either a misleading claim from a politician, or a misleading claim and a correction. Results indicate that corrections frequently fail to reduce misperceptions among the targeted ideological group. We also document several instances of a “backfire effect” in which corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question
The nature and origins of misperceptions: understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics
No full textPolitical misperceptions can distort public debate and undermine people's ability to form meaningful opinions. Why do people often hold these false or unsupported beliefs, and why is it sometimes so difficult to convince them otherwise? We argue that political misperceptions are typically rooted in directionally motivated reasoning, which limits the effectiveness of corrective information about controversial issues and political figures. We discuss factors known to affect the prevalence of directionally motivated reasoning and assess strategies for accurately measuring misperceptions in surveys. Finally, we address the normative implications of misperceptions for democracy and suggest important topics for future research
Success matters: casualty sensitivity and the war in Iraq
No full textSince the Vietnam War, U.S. policymakers have worried that the American public will support military operations only if the human costs of the war, as measured in combat casualties, are minimal. Although the public is rightly averse to suffering casualties, the level of popular sensitivity to U.S. military casualties depends critically on the context in which those losses occur. The public's tolerance for the human costs of war is primarily shaped by the intersection of two crucial factors: beliefs about the rightness or wrongness of the war, and beliefs about the war's likely success. The impact of each belief depends upon the other. Ultimately, however, beliefs about the likelihood of success matter most in determining the public's willingness to tolerate U.S. military deaths in combat. A reanalysis of publicly available polls and a detailed analysis of a series of polls designed by the authors to tap into public attitudes on casualties support this conclusion
Institutions, information, and faction: an experimental test of Riker’s federalism thesis for political parties
No full textDisplacing misinformation about events: An experimental test of causal corrections
No full textPublishedMisinformation can be very difficult to correct and may have lasting effects even after it is discredited. One reason for this persistence is the manner in which people make causal inferences based on available information about a given event or outcome. As a result, false information may continue to influence beliefs and attitudes even after being debunked if it is not replaced by an alternate causal explanation. We test this hypothesis using an experimental paradigm adapted from the psychology literature on the continued influence effect and find that a causal explanation for an unexplained event is significantly more effective than a denial even when the denial is backed by unusually strong evidence. This result has significant implications for how to most effectively counter misinformation about controversial political events and outcomes.We are grateful to Democracy Fund and the New America Foundation for funding support and to
Rune Slothuus and Dannagal Young for helpful comments
- …
