Rob Bond and I have a new paper in Science Advances that explores this question. The short answer is yes, but maybe not for the reasons you might think. Asked to evaluate the veracity of hundreds of political claims over a six month period, conservatives were consistently less accurate that liberals. We further demonstrate that the media environment plays a significant role in explaining why this is. We based the statements we asked people to evaluate on news stories that got the most engagement on social media, and we found that falsehoods in that collection most often benefited conservatives, while truths tended to benefit liberals. Ultimately, our results suggest that both liberals and conservatives are biased, but that these biases have different implications for the two groups. The more conservatives believe claims that are good for their in-group, the less accurate they are; liberal who exhibit a similar bias become more accurate.
Category Archives: MisperceptionsGrant
News media coverage for PLOS ONE study
My work with Brian Weeks has generated a bit of news coverage this past week. The work has been covered by U.S. News & World Report, among others. It also lead to a couple TV spots. There was a short segment on the local ABC affiliate, and I was a panelist on Face the State, a Sunday talk show produced by the Columbus CBS station.
I’ve also written a short essay discussing the work for The Conversation, which has since been picked up by Salon. You can hear a brief interview with me about the work over at BYU radio.
Facebook’s fake news problem
My short essay about Facebook’s fake news problem, originally posted at The Conversation, has been picked up by Scientific American, the Associated Press, and several others. I also did a short television interview on CBC, and gave radio interviews to “Top of Mind with Julie Rose” and the “Matt Townsend Show“. It’s exciting to be reaching a larger audience with these ideas.
Neo defends dissertation
Congratulations to Rachel Neo on defending her dissertation yesterday. Rachel’s work provocatively argues that individuals do not always accept online ratings at face value. When evaluating contentious content, in this case fact checking messages, the influence of ratings is contingent on users’ perceptions of the community of raters, users’ confidence in his or her judgment heuristics, the type of rating used (stars or “likes”), and more. It’s an exciting avenue of research, I look forward to seeing where she takes it next.