To respond to you to concern, we once more assessed the latest answers victims offered when expected just what fake development and you may propaganda imply. We assessed solely those solutions in which subjects considering a definition for either title (55%, letter = 162). Remember that the newest ratio from subjects which given such as meanings is lower than in Experiments step 1 (95%) and you can 2 (88%). Up on better examination, i found that multiple subjects got more than likely pasted definitions regarding a keen Google search. For the an enthusiastic exploratory data, we discover a statistically significant difference in the probability you to participants offered a pasted definition, considering Governmental Identity, ? 2 (2, Letter = 162) = eight.66, p = 0.022. Specifically, conservatives (23%) have been likely to be than simply centrists (6%) to incorporate a pasted definition, ? dos (step 1, Letter = 138) = eight.31, p = 0.007, Or = cuatro.57, 95% CI [step one.30, ], any other p viewpoints > 0.256. Liberals dropped ranging from this type of extremes, which have thirteen% getting a pasted definition. Since we were looking for subjects’ individual definitions, we omitted this type of suspicious answers off data (letter = 27).
We observed an equivalent analytic process such as Studies step 1 and you can dos. Desk 4 displays such studies. Because the desk reveals, the dimensions of victims whose responses included the features demonstrated in the Test step one was indeed similar round the political identification. Especially, i don’t replicate the fresh new selecting off Test step 1, in which those who known left was in fact very likely to bring separate meanings on terms and conditions than simply people that known best, ? dos (step 1, Letter = 90) = step one.42, p = 0.233, any kind of p thinking > 0.063.
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) flirting apps for teenagers = 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.