Brendan Nyhan

New research on correcting misperceptions

Jason Reifler and I released a New America Foundation report today titled "Which Corrections Work? Research results and practice recommendations." Here's the executive summary:

Social science research has found that misinformation about politics and other controversial issues is often very difficult to correct. However, all corrections are not necessarily equal— some approaches to presenting corrective information may be more persuasive than others. In this report, we summarize new research in the field and present recommendations for journalists, educators, and civil society groups who hope to counter the influence of false or misleading claims.

The key challenge in countering misperceptions is to understand the psychology of belief— why people might believe something that is not true and reject or ignore corrective information contradicting that belief. If people are sufficiently motivated to believe in a claim, of course, it may be impossible to change their minds. In other cases, however, different approaches to presenting corrective information may be more effective. This report focuses on three areas in which corrections often fail to capitalize on what is known about how people process information: using non-credible or unpersuasive sources, failing to displace inaccurate causal understandings of an event or outcome; and trying to negate false claims rather than affirm correct ones.

I summarized our findings for Columbia Journalism Review as well. Here's the introduction to my column on our findings:

Misperceptions, like zombies, are difficult to kill. A recent Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, for instance, found that the “death panel” myth is still believed by a substantial portion of the American public more than four years after the term was first coined by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

What can journalists do? There is reason for concern that artificially balanced coverage may misinform the public about the state of the available evidence, but trying to set the record straight isn’t always effective either. In fact, research I have conducted with the University of Exeter’s Jason Reifler and Duke University’s Peter Ubel concludes that corrective information about controversial issues like “death panels” is often unpersuasive to the most susceptible ideological group and sometimes makes the problem worse—a phenomenon known as the backfire effect. This research inspired us to start to develop a set of best practices for journalists. In a New America Foundation report published last year, Reifler and I presented a series of recommendations based on social science research to help journalists counter misinformation more effectively.

In a follow-up New America Foundation report published today, Reifler and I summarize the results of a series of experiments conducted in late 2012 and early 2013 that put several of our previous recommendations to the test.

New at CJR: Factcheck lower-level politicians!

I recently wrote a column for Columbia Journalism Review based on my field experiment with Jason Reifler testing the effectiveness of fact-checking on state legislators. Here's how it begins:

Factcheckers often struggle to change the minds of skeptical voters. But what effect do they have on the politicians under scrutiny? Can the threat of being factchecked help keep politicians honest?

To answer this question, my co-author Jason Reifler of the University of Exeter and I conducted a field experiment during the final months of the 2012 campaign. We sent letters to hundreds of state legislators in the states where PolitiFact has an affiliate warning of the potential electoral and reputational consequences of negative factchecks. The results of our study, which we announced this week in a Politico op-ed and New America Foundation report, were striking: lawmakers who were sent the letter about the threat posed by factchecking were significantly less likely to have their statements publicly questioned as inaccurate by factcheckers or other sources than those who were not.

Our findings suggest that the presence of factcheckers creates a watchdog effect, helping to constrain politicians by increasing the costs of inaccuracy. But they also have implications for how factchecking outlets and the funders who support them allocate their resources. We believe factcheckers should broaden their focus beyond the presidential campaigns and national political figures who now receive the overwhelming majority of their attention, especially during elections.

Results from a new fact-checking field experiment

My co-author Jason Reifler and I announced the results of a new study today in a Politico op-ed. Here's how it begins:

Although the federal government is currently shut down as a result of Republican efforts to defund the Affordable Care Act, many important debates over health policy going forward will take place at the state level. Unfortunately, continuing public confusion over the law is likely to be exploited by opportunistic politicians if they aren’t fact-checked aggressively by the press.

The study is summarized in a New America Foundation report that is also being released today. Here's the executive summary:

Politicians in the United States are coming under increasing scrutiny from fact-checkers like PolitiFact, Factcheck.org, and the Washington Post Fact Checker, who examine the accuracy of public statements that are often reported without challenge by traditional news organizations. However, we know little about the effects of this practice, especially on public officials. One possibility is that fact-checking might help to deter the dissemination of misinformation, especially for candidates and legislators at lower levels of government who receive relatively little scrutiny and are sensitive to potential threats to re-election.

To test this hypothesis, we conducted a field experiment during the 2012 campaign evaluating the effects of reminding state legislators about the electoral and reputational threat posed by fact-checking. Our experimental sample consisted of nearly 1200 legislators in nine states with state PolitiFact affiliates. We found that legislators who were sent reminders that they are vulnerable to fact-checking were less likely to receive a negative PolitiFact rating or have the accuracy of their statements questioned publicly than legislators who were not sent reminders. These results suggest that the electoral and reputational threat posed by fact-checking can affect the behavior of elected officials. In this way, fact-checking could play an important role in improving political discourse and strengthening democratic accountability.

Finally, the full results of the study are presented in an academic working paper on my Dartmouth website - here's the abstract:

Does external monitoring improve democratic performance? Fact-checking has come to play an increasingly important role in political coverage in the United States, but research suggests it may be ineffective at reducing public misperceptions about controversial issues. However, fact-checking might in- stead help improve political discourse by increasing the reputational costs or risks of spreading misinformation for political elites. To evaluate this deter- rent hypothesis, we conducted a field experiment in nine U.S. states in which a randomly assigned group of state legislators were sent a series of letters about the risks to their reputation and electoral security if they are caught making questionable statements. The legislators who were sent these letters were substantially less likely to receive a negative fact-checking rating or to have their accuracy questioned publicly, suggesting that the threat posed by fact-checking can reduce inaccuracy in statements made by political elites.

On the Media interview on polarization/shutdown

I was interviewed by On the Media's Bob Garfield about how the media should cover the role of polarization in the government shutdown for this week's show - here's the audio:

New at CJR: The roots of the shutdown fight

In my latest column for CJR, I urge reporters to go deeper in their coverage of the shutdown/debt ceiling fight and investigate the positions held by individual members of the House GOP and the political implications of those positions in their districts. Here's how it begins:

Washington is in full blame-game mode as the federal government moves into shutdown this morning, including facile attributions of blame to national leaders.

The true culprit, however, is deepening legislative polarization, which has its roots in intra-party dynamics playing out in districts around the country. To help voters understand what is happening and why., reporters should go local, providing richer and more detailed coverage of the positions and district politics of the legislators who are pushing the House GOP toward confrontation.

For more, read the whole thing.