I’ve posted a short essay about how people can protect themselves from misinformation about COVID-19 on Medium.

Two steps to fight the spread of misinformation during a crisis
Help protect yourself and others from COVID-19 by knowing which social media claims you can trust.
https://medium.com/@RKellyGarrett/before-you-share-slow-down-and-search-9467294274ee

Dustin Carnahan and I have a new paper out in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research that uses a pair of experiments to assess how judgment processing strategies influence individuals’ response to corrections. We find that on-line processing is associated with less bias when updating beliefs in response to corrections than memory-based processing. The article doi is 10.1093/ijpor/edz037

The limited influence of corrective messages is one of the most striking observations in the misperceptions literature. We elaborate on this well-known outcome, showing that correction effectiveness varies according to recipients’ judgment strategy. Using data from two online experiments, we demonstrate that individuals’ responses to corrective messages are less biased by prior attitudes when they engage in on-line rather than memory-based processing. We also show that individuals are more responsive to one-sided messages under conditions of on-line rather than memory-based processing. Unexpectedly, two-sided messages, which repeat the inaccuracy before correcting it, performed better than one-sided messages among individuals using memory-based processes. These findings contribute to our understanding of fact-checking, and suggest strategies that could help promote greater responsiveness to corrective messages.

We have a new paper in the Journal of Communication arguing that one way that partisan media may be promoting misperceptions is by increasing affective polarization among those who consume it.

Garrett, R. K., Long, J., & Jeong, M. (2019). From Partisan Media to Misperception: Affective Polarization as Mediator. Journal of Communication. doi:10.1093/joc/jqz028 (free access link)

This article provides evidence that affective polarization is an important mechanism linking conservative media use to political misperceptions. Partisan media’s potential to polarize is well documented, and there are numerous ways in which hostility toward political opponents might promote the endorsement of inaccurate beliefs. We test this mediated model using data collected via nationally representative surveys conducted during two recent U.S. presidential elections. Fixed effects regression models using three-wave panel data collected in 2012 provide evidence that conservative media exposure contributes to more polarized feelings toward major-party presidential candidates, and this growing favorability gap is associated with misperceptions critical of the Democrats. Further, these effects are more pronounced among Republicans than among Democrats. Cross-sectional analyses using data collected in 2016 provide additional evidence of the mediated relationship. The theoretical and real-world significance of these results are discussed.

Note: The supplemental information is not yet posted on the publishers website. It is available here.

We have a new paper in Political Communication demonstrating that being socially excluded can make people less receptive to a fact check of a belief that is widely held within their party.

50 free eprints are available here: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/BATWR42RRJBJDF7HRJ5B/full?target=10.1080/10584609.2019.1666943

Research suggests that ostracism could promote endorsement of partisan falsehoods. Socially excluded individuals are uniquely attentive to distinctions between in-groups and out-groups, and act in ways intended to promote group belonging, potentially including a greater willingness to accept claims made by other group members. We test this assertion with a 2 (ostracism) X 2 (anonymity) X 2 (topic) mixed factorial design using the Ostracism Online paradigm with a demographically diverse online sample of Americans (N = 413). Results suggest that when ostracized, both Democrats and Republicans are more likely to endorse party-line falsehoods about the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. These effects are contingent on several individual-level differences, including strength of ideological commitment, cognitive reflection, and faith in intuition for facts. These patterns failed to replicate with fracking, a politically charged science topic.

Brian Weeks and I have a chapter in James Katz’s new collection, Social media and journalism’s search for truth. In it we consider how the emotionally evocative nature of social media may be contributing to users’ propensity to hold misperceptions. It’s an impressive collection of essays; just look at the book’s table of contents. If you’re interested, you can see a preview of the chapter here.

Weeks, B., & Garrett, R. K. (2019). The Emotional Characteristics of Social Media and Political Misperceptions. In J. E. Katz (Ed.), Social media and journalism’s search for truth (pp. 236-250). Oxford University Press.

I’m pleased to announce my promotion to Professor. I’m honored by the recognition and excited to continue the work that brought me here.

I have a new paper just published that provides more evidence that the effects of social media on political beliefs have tended to be small. Others scholars have published work reaching similar conclusions, but I think that seeing consistent results across a range of methods is useful. This paper uses fixed effects models of panel data collected from large, representative samples during both the 2012 and 2016 elections. The paper is open-access, and is available here:

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213500

UPDATE: Tom Jacobs provides a nice overview of the work at Pacific Standard, and there’s a short write up by Alex Lardieri in US News & World Reports, too.