The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rumors and Health Care Reform: Experiments in Political Misinformation
Open accessAbstract
This article explores belief in political rumors surrounding the health care reforms enacted by Congress in 2010. Refuting rumors with statements from unlikely sources can, under certain circumstances, increase the willingness of citizens to reject rumors regardless of their own political predilections. Such source credibility effects, while well known in the political persuasion literature, have not been applied to the study of rumor. Though source credibility appears to be an effective tool for debunking political rumors, risks remain. Drawing upon research from psychology on ‘fluency’ – the ease of information recall – this article argues that rumors acquire power through familiarity. Attempting to quash rumors through direct refutation may facilitate their diffusion by increasing fluency. The empirical results find that merely repeating a rumor increases its power.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 18,497
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2 · Cited by 8,822 · cited 1×
“27 Petty and Cacioppo 1986.”
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612451018 · Cited by 2,920
Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions
Bartels, L. M. (2002) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1021226224601 · Cited by 1,468
Bruder, M., Haffke, P., Neave, N., Nouripanah, N., & Imhoff, R. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225 · Cited by 1,049 · cited 1×
“18 Brotherton, French, and Pickering 2013; Bruder et al. 2013; Oliver and Wood 2014; Wood, Douglas, and Sutton 2012.”
BackgroundBerinsky, A. J., Margolis, M. F., & Sances, M. W. (2014) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12081 · Cited by 951 · cited 3×
“The sample characteristics of this ‘attentive’ sample are presented in Appendix B. 55 Berinsky, Margolis, and Sances 2014.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationPolitical ignorance and collective policy preferences
Gilens, M. (2001) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055401002222 · Cited by 764
Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories
Wood, M. J., Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2012) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550611434786 · Cited by 660
Cited by
Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.31.2.211 · Cited by 6,767
Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response
Bavel, J. J. V., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., Crockett, M. J., Crum, A. J., Douglas, K. M., Druckman, J. N., et al. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z · Cited by 4,964
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011 · Cited by 2,022
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007 · Cited by 1,360
“These include work on conspiracy belief [9], superstition [10], rumors [11], bullshit receptivity [12], andmisperceptions [13], among others.”
BackgroundTucker, J. A., Guess, A., Barbera, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., Stukal, D., & Nyhan, B. (2018) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3144139 · Cited by 1,222
The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs About Politics
Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2017) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12394 · Cited by 1,183
Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news
Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000465 · Cited by 1,268
Coppock, A., & McClellan, O. A. (2019) · Research & Politics · doi:10.1177/2053168018822174 · Cited by 987
Vaccari, C., & Chadwick, A. (2020) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305120903408 · Cited by 978
“People are more likely to accept messages as true if they perceive them as familiar (Berinsky, 2017).”
BackgroundThe Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes’ Steadfast Factual Adherence
Wood, T., & Porter, E. (2019) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y · Cited by 904
Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news
Scheufele, D. A., & Krause, N. M. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1805871115 · Cited by 878
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/jopy.12476 · Cited by 879
How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation
Walter, N., & Murphy, S. T. (2018) · Communication Monographs · doi:10.1080/03637751.2018.1467564 · Cited by 561
Walter, N., & Tukachinsky, R. (2020) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650219854600 · Cited by 522
What Drives Conspiratorial Beliefs? The Role of Informational Cues and Predispositions
Uscinski, J. E., Klofstad, C., & Atkinson, M. D. (2016) · Political Research Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1065912915621621 · Cited by 478
Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization
Barberá, P. (2020) · Social Media and Democracy · doi:10.1017/9781108890960.004 · Cited by 373
Does Counter-Attitudinal Information Cause Backlash? Results from Three Large Survey Experiments
Guess, A., & Coppock, A. (2020) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123418000327 · Cited by 372
Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations.
Swire-Thompson, B., DeGutis, J., & Lazer, D. (2020) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.06.006 · Cited by 360
Misinformation, Disinformation, and Online Propaganda
Guess, A. M., & Lyons, B. A. (2020) · Social Media and Democracy · doi:10.1017/9781108890960.003 · Cited by 284
Jerit, J., & Zhao, Y. (2020) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032814 · Cited by 263
Peterson, E., & Iyengar, S. (2019) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/pmn7h · Cited by 241
Political Psychology in the Digital (mis)Information age: A Model of News Belief and Sharing
Van Bavel, J. J., Harris, E. A., Pärnamets, P., Rathje, S., Doell, K. C., & Tucker, J. A. (2021) · Social Issues and Policy Review · doi:10.1111/sipr.12077 · Cited by 213
The effect of conspiratorial thinking and motivated reasoning on belief in election fraud
Edelson, J., Alduncin, A., Krewson, C., Sieja, J. A., & Uscinski, J. E. (2017) · Political Research Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1065912917721061 · Cited by 198
Understanding and combatting misinformation across 16 countries on six continents
Arechar, A. A., Allen, J., Berinsky, A. J., Cole, R., Epstein, Z., Garimella, K., Gully, A., Lu, J. G., Ross, R. M., Stagnaro, M. N., et al. (2023) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01641-6 · Cited by 188
Self-citationThree Painful Truths About Social Media
Deibert, R. J. (2019) · Journal of Democracy · doi:10.1353/jod.2019.0002 · Cited by 145
Golec de Zavala, A., & Federico, C. M. (2018) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2496 · Cited by 136
Emphasizing publishers does not effectively reduce susceptibility to misinformation on social media
Dias, N., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020) · Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review · doi:10.37016/mr-2020-001 · Cited by 145
“Many studies have found that source credibility can affect judgments of accuracy or believability (Baum & Groeling, 2009; Landrum et al., 2017; Berinsky, 2017; Swire et al., 2017; Knight Foundation, 2018; Kim et al., 2019).”
BackgroundNaeem, M., & Ozuem, W. (2022) · Information Technology & People · doi:10.1108/itp-01-2021-0061 · Cited by 94
Affective polarization and misinformation belief
Jenke, L. (2024) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-022-09851-w · Cited by 85
Tsai, L. L., Morse, B. S., & Blair, R. A. (2020) · Comparative Political Studies · doi:10.1177/0010414019897698 · Cited by 74
The 2020 presidential election and beliefs about fraud: Continuity or change?
Enders, A. M., Uscinski, J. E., Klofstad, C. A., Premaratne, K., Seelig, M. I., Wuchty, S., Murthi, M. N., & Funchion, J. R. (2021) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102366 · Cited by 64
Resistance to Position Change, Motivated Reasoning, and Polarization
Stanley, M. L., Henne, P., Yang, B. W., & De Brigard, F. (2020) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-019-09526-z · Cited by 58
Kaiser, J., Vaccari, C., & Chadwick, A. (2022) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1093/joc/jqac002 · Cited by 44
Perception and deception: Exploring individual responses to deepfakes across different modalities
Ahmed, S., & Chua, H. W. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20383 · Cited by 29
Understanding and Combating Misinformation Across 16 Countries on Six Continents
Arechar, A. A., Allen, J. N. L., Berinsky, A. J., Cole, R., Epstein, Z., Garimella, K., Gully, A., Lu, J. G., Ross, R. M., Stagnaro, M., et al. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/a9frz · Cited by 25
Self-citation(2021) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/ar96c · Cited by 12
Baxter, G., Marcella, R., & Walicka, A. (2019) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/jd-10-2018-0161 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Berinsky, A. J.
- Venue
- British Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2015-06-19
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 241-262
- ISSN
- 0007-1234 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-2112
- OpenAlex
- W1428768901
- Cited by
- 703
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 138.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
