The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Processing political misinformation: comprehending the Trump phenomenon
Open accessAbstract
This study investigated the cognitive processing of true and false political information. Specifically, it examined the impact of source credibility on the assessment of veracity when information comes from a polarizing source (Experiment 1), and effectiveness of explanations when they come from one's own political party or an opposition party (Experiment 2). These experiments were conducted prior to the 2016 Presidential election. Participants rated their belief in factual and incorrect statements that President Trump made on the campaign trail; facts were subsequently affirmed and misinformation retracted. Participants then re-rated their belief immediately or after a delay. Experiment 1 found that (i) if information was attributed to Trump, Republican supporters of Trump believed it more than if it was presented without attribution, whereas the opposite was true for Democrats and (ii) although Trump supporters reduced their belief in misinformation items following a correction, they did not change their voting preferences. Experiment 2 revealed that the explanation's source had relatively little impact, and belief updating was more influenced by perceived credibility of the individual initially purporting the information. These findings suggest that people use political figures as a heuristic to guide evaluation of what is true or false, yet do not necessarily insist on veracity as a prerequisite for supporting political candidates.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Individuals accept misinformation and go on to incorporate it into their future political decisions (see e.g., Thorson, 2016;Swire et al., 2017;Flynn and Krupnikov, 2019).”
From Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? (2019) · cites this paper as Swire et al., 2017
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 case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339 · Cited by 4,904 · cited 2×
“For example, Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway [24] suggested that psychological variables such as dogmatism (that is, intolerance of ambiguity, avoidance of complexity, and a need for closure), are predictive of conservatism and increase the likelihood that an individual engages in “black-or-white” assessments o…”
BackgroundLord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098 · Cited by 4,583
Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x · Cited by 4,344
Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057 · Cited by 4,008
Self-citationMisinformation 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
Self-citationThe Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades' Evidence
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x · Cited by 2,205
Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions
Bartels, L. M. (2002) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1021226224601 · Cited by 1,468
Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection
Kahan, D. M. (2013) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500005271 · Cited by 1,302
The Influence of Partisan Motivated Reasoning on Public Opinion
Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0 · Cited by 891
Research works printed but not linked: 37
- 10.1002/polq.12398 · DOI · Paper page
- Berinsky AJ, 2015, Rumors and health care reform: experiments in political misinformation, Br. J. Polit. Sci., 1
- 10.1037/a0034515 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/19331681.2014.951753 · DOI
- 10.3758/s13423-011-0065-1 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jml.2015.09.002 · DOI
- 10.3758/MC.38.8.1087 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00802.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00735.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00601.x · DOI · Paper page
- McGuire WJ, 1972, Experimental social psychology, 108
- 10.1016/bs.adms.2014.08.005 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.11.017 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/0093650211416646 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0059837 · DOI
- 10.1257/089533005775196732 · DOI · Paper page
- Mooney C, 2012, The Republican brain: the science of why they deny science and reality
- 10.1177/0963721416654436 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/pops.12244 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/0022-3816.00033 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/S0022381609090914 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3758/s13421-013-0358-x · DOI · Paper page
- Eagly A, 1993, The psychology of attitudes
- 10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.10.001 · DOI · Paper page
- McGinnes E, 1980, ‘Better liked than right’: trustworthiness and expertise in credibility, Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., 6, 67
- 10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.002 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1468-2508.00161 · DOI · Paper page
- Keith BE, 1992, The myth of the independent voter., 10.1525/9780520912236 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1207/S15327825MCS0601_3 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/jcom.12164 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.electstud.2009.07.001 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0022381613000789 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.39 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.39
- 10.1177/0146167299025002009 · DOI
- Mayer WG, 2015, Why Trump -- and how far can he go?, Forum., 13, 541
- 10.1017/XPS.2015.19 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era.
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008 · Cited by 1,985
Self-citationSystematic Literature Review on the Spread of Health-related Misinformation on Social Media
Wang, Y., McKee, M., Torbica, A., & Stuckler, D. (2019) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552 · Cited by 1,806
“Many studies have thus analysed the credibility of user-generated contents and the cognitive process involved in the decision to spread online information on social and political events (Abbasi and Liu, 2013; Castillo et al., 2011; Lupia, 2013; Swire et al., 2017) .”
The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction
Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., Kendeou, P., Vraga, E. K., & Amazeen, M. A. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y · Cited by 1,372
Self-citationPennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007 · Cited by 1,360
“For example, attributing a false claim to President Trump increased Trump supporters' belief in the claim while reducing Democrats' belief in the claim [57].”
BackgroundPrior 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
Metadata
- Authors
- Swire, B., Berinsky, A. J., Lewandowsky, S., & Ecker, U. K. H.
- Venue
- Royal Society Open Science
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2017-03
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 160802
- ISSN
- 2054-5703 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2593816498
- Cited by
- 498
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 113.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- Licence
- royalsociety.org/journals/ethics-policies/data-sharing-mining/ (tdm)
- Funders
- Royal Society
- University of Western Australia
- Australian-American Fulbright Commission
- Psychonomic Society
- Australian Research Council
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Processing political misinformation: comprehending the Trump phenomenon. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rsos.160802
- The paper
- Swire, B., Berinsky, A. J., Lewandowsky, S., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2017). Processing political misinformation: comprehending the Trump phenomenon. Royal Society Open Science. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160802
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.
