The DOI matches its Crossref record; 102 of the 103 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.
Political Misinformation
Open accessAbstract
Misinformation occurs when people hold incorrect factual beliefs and do so confidently. The problem, first conceptualized by Kuklinski and colleagues in 2000, plagues political systems and is exceedingly difficult to correct. In this review, we assess the empirical literature on political misinformation in the United States and consider what scholars have learned since the publication of that early study. We conclude that research on this topic has developed unevenly. Over time, scholars have elaborated on the psychological origins of political misinformation, and this work has cumulated in a productive way. By contrast, although there is an extensive body of research on how to correct misinformation, this literature is less coherent in its recommendations. Finally, a nascent line of research asks whether people's reports of their factual beliefs are genuine or are instead a form of partisan cheerleading. Overall, scholarly research on political misinformation illustrates the many challenges inherent in representative democracy.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Misinformation can lead to misperceptions, as discussed earlier with regard to elites (Jerit & Zhao, 2020).”
From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Jerit & Zhao, 2020
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
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Zaller, J. R. (1992) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818691 · Cited by 7,785
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 · Cited by 5,359
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
What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters
Carpini, M. X. D., & Keeter, S. (1996) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2655098 · Cited by 4,864
When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2 · Cited by 3,173
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
The 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 · cited 1×
“…design, i.e., a simulated social 14 “may reduce barriers to correction that are likely to occur in more overtly politicized spaces” (Vraga & Bode 2017, p. 624).7 Historically, source credibility has been viewed as a function of a speaker’s expertise and trustworthiness (Pornpitakpan 2004).”
BackgroundBeyond 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
Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1992) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226644806.001.0001 · Cited by 1,680
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Bullock JG., 2007, Experiments on partisanship and public opinion: party cues, false beliefs, and Bayesian updating
- Clifford S, 2017, Encouraging information search reduces factual misperceptions
- Druckman JN, 2012, Crit. Rev. J. Politics Soc., 24, 199
- Flynn D., 2016, The scope and correlates of political misperceptions in the mass public
- Graham MH., 2018, Political Behav
- 10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.723 · DOI
- Nyhan B., 2010, Forum, 8, 5
- Schaffner BF, 2017, Public Opin. Q., 81, 86
- Sunstein CR., 2009, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, and What Can Be Done
- Yair O, 2018, How robust is evidence of partisan perceptual bias in survey responses? A new approach for studying expressive responding
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Peterson, E., & Iyengar, S. (2019) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/pmn7h · Cited by 241
Broda, E., & Strömbäck, J. (2024) · Annals of the International Communication Association · doi:10.1080/23808985.2024.2323736 · Cited by 310
State of the world 2021: autocratization changing its nature?
Boese, V. A., Lundstedt, M., Morrison, K., Sato, Y., & Lindberg, S. I. (2022) · Democratization · doi:10.1080/13510347.2022.2069751 · Cited by 173
The Effect of Frames on COVID-19 Vaccine Resistance
Palm, R. I., Bolsen, T., & Kingsland, J. T. (2021) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2021.661257 · Cited by 123
Public Perceptions of Women’s Inclusion and Feelings of Political Efficacy
STAUFFER, K. E. (2021) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055421000678 · Cited by 117
Metadata
- Authors
- Jerit, J., & Zhao, Y.
- Affiliations
- Stony Brook University (US)
- ORCID
- Jerit, Jennifer
- Venue
- Annual Review of Political Science
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2020-05-11
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 77-94
- ISSN
- 1094-2939 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-1577
- OpenAlex
- W4249407388
- Cited by
- 263
- References
- 102
- Citations by year
- 2026: 36 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 8
- FWCI
- 5.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Annual Review of Political Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- University of Houston
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- political misinformation, factual beliefs, belief confidence, misinformation correction, representative democracy, American politics
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
