The DOI matches its Crossref record; 75 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 8 of the 30 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading?
Open accessAbstract
Do partisan disagreements over politically-relevant facts, and preferences for the information sources from which to obtain them, represent genuine differences of opinion or insincere cheerleading? The answer to this question is crucial for understanding the scope of partisan polarization. We test between these alternatives with experiments that offer incentives for correct survey responses and allow respondents to search for information before answering each question. We find that partisan cheerleading inflates divides in factual information, but only modestly. Incentives have no impact on partisan divides in information search; these divides are no different from those that occur outside the survey context when we examine web browsing data from the same respondents. Overall, our findings support the motivated reasoning interpretation of misinformation; partisans seek out information with congenial slant and sincerely adopt inaccurate beliefs that cast their party in a favorable light.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper tests whether partisan gaps in political facts and news-source preferences reflect sincere motivated reasoning or insincere cheerleading. Across two incentivized survey experiments plus linked web-browsing data, it finds incentives modestly reduce factual divides but do not affect information search, supporting motivated reasoning.
Key findings
- Incentives reduced the partisan information divide but did not eliminate it: the baseline divide was .32, the Democrat × incentive interaction was -0.10, and a .22 divide remained among incentivized respondents; roughly 60–70% of the initial divide persisted.
- Among respondents certain of their answers, the remaining incentivized divide was .27 (95% CI [0.24, 0.30]); among confidently misinformed respondents, the remaining gap was .13 (95% CI [0.11, 0.15]).
- Incentives had no effect on news choice: the estimated effect on selecting a co-partisan source was -0.003 (95% CI [-0.03, 0.02]), with similarly null effects for expert, mainstream, and out-partisan sources.
- Survey news choices corresponded with real-world browsing: the correlation between survey and behavioral media slant was .58, and partisan divides in media choice were similar across unincentivized survey (1.24 SD), incentivized survey (1.30 SD), and real-world media diet (1.36 SD).
Methods
- Two YouGov surveys: September 2018 (N = 1,000) and March 2019 (N = 1,700), pooled; 954 respondents completed both, and 855 had linked desktop web-browsing data.
- Respondents were randomly assigned to receive $0.50 per correct answer on a five-item political information battery; before each question they chose one news source from left-leaning, right-leaning, expert, and two mainstream options, then answered and reported confidence.
- Main analysis used pooled models with item fixed effects, Democrat × incentive treatment interactions, and standard errors clustered by respondent; news-choice models regressed source selection on incentive treatment and item fixed effects; web-browsing comparison used Bakshy et al. (2015) alignment scores.
Limitations
- The paper states it cannot distinguish motivated reasoning from differential beliefs about source credibility or evidence quality, cannot rule out that psychic rewards for cheerleading exceed the monetary incentives, and cannot make claims about the realism of its incentive manipulations.
- The paper notes the web-tracking measure captures only desktop browsing, missing mobile web and cable television, and that the unweighted sample is older and more highly educated than a nationally representative sample, though weighted robustness checks are similar.
- The text also makes evident that the information items were selected for intense partisan disagreement, that respondents had no “Don’t know” option, and that demand effects or post-treatment concerns around response certainty are possible, though the authors report no detectable incentive effect on certainty.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
8 of 30 cited sources checked · 5 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In the closest comparison, Bullock et al. (2015, 521) find that only 40% to 45% of the initial partisan gaps remain when incentives are made available.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Results: Partisan Divides in Information
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Bullock et al. (2015, 521) source
The Abstract reports that incentives for correct answers reduced partisan gaps by about 55% in one experiment and 60% in the other. That leaves about 45% and 40%, respectively, of the initial gaps; the Conclusion reports the same reductions. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“While the treatment e↵ects of incentives across these studies are of similar magnitude to those observed in Bullock et al. (2015), the initial partisan gap on these items is much larger than previously obtained in incentive-based designs.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Results: Partisan Divides in Information
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Bullock et al. (2015) source
Bullock et al. report that incentives reduced the partisan gap by 55% in Experiment 1 and by around 60% or 80%, depending on the incentive condition, in the later analysis. These passages establish the magnitude attributed to Bullock et al.; they do not assess the citing authors’ comparison with their own studies. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The persistence of partisan divides in factual beliefs among the groups provided with incentives is noticeably higher than in previous work.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Results: Partisan Divides in Information
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Bullock et al. (2015, 521) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Experiment 1 reports that about 45% of the partisan gap remained when participants were incentivized to answer correctly. The Theory and Prior Evidence section says earlier incentive research did not examine partisan patterns in responses, so the paper does not establish that this persistence was higher than in previous work. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“While the treatment e↵ects of incentives across these studies are of similar magnitude to those observed in Bullock et al. (2015), the initial partisan gap on these items is much larger than previously obtained in incentive-based designs.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Results: Partisan Divides in Information
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Bullock et al. (2015) source
The Experiment 1 results report an initial partisan gap of .118 in the unincentivized control condition, reduced by .065 when incentives were offered. The section on incentives for correct and “don’t know” responses reports a control-condition gap of .145. These provide the earlier incentive-design benchmarks attributed to Bullock et al.; the comparison with the citing study’s items is the citing authors’ own. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The partisan di↵erence in information, which was substantial among respondents o↵ered no incentive, fell by half among respondents informed that their chances of winning a 200 dollar gift certificate would increase with correct answers.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Misinformation as Partisan Cheerleading
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Bullock et al., 2015 source
In Experiment 1, the paper reports that the partisan gap in responses to factual questions fell by 55% when incentives were offered. The same section says respondents were told each correct answer would increase their chance of winning a $200 gift certificate. The citing sentence's 'fell by half' is a fair approximation of that result. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On survey items we later examine in this study, partisan di↵erences approach 50 percentage points on some matters related to misstatements made by Donald Trump, including widely publicized claims about illegal voting in the 2016 election and the alleged wiretapping of Trump Tower by the Obama Administration.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Incentives reduce the partisan divide to two-thirds of the magnitude in the unincentivized conditions.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Results: Partisan Divides in Information
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Incentives have no e↵ect whatsoever on news choice.”
- Also stated in: § Partisan Divides in News Choice · plain
“In contrast to the evidence of modest partisan cheerleading for the information items, we observe no change in news choices when incentives are made available.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Partisan Divides in News Choice
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Partisan Divides in News Choice · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the provision of incentives has no bearing on information selection.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: The partisan leanings of the news sources (MSNBC/Huffington Post as left-leaning, Fox News/Breitbart as right-leaning, CNN/New York Times as mainstream) are as categorized.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 2 reveals substantial partisan divides across the items we consider.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Results: Partisan Divides in Information
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- Probably not a substantial claim. 29
- It may state two separate claims as one. 27
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In this motivated reasoning account, polarization has strengthened partisans' willingness to ignore or counter-argue with credible facts that cast aspersions on their party or party leaders and, conversely, to uncritically accept false information that reflects favorably on their side (Gaines et al., 2007;Shapiro and Block-Elkon, 2008;Kraft et al., 2015).”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gaines et al., 2007 source
- Partly supportedcites Shapiro and Block-Elkon, 2008 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kraft et al., 2015 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“In a point we later revisit when discussing the implications of our findings, this amount falls in between the incentive levels used in previous studies.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Research Design
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Prior et al. (2015) source
- Supportedcites Bullock et al. (2015) source
The Experiment 2 section reports payments of $0.10 to $1.00 per correct response. Thus, $0.50 per question falls within the range of incentive levels used in the cited study. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In this view, partisans are in fact well informed, but prefer to act misinformed in surveys.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Prior et al., 2015 source
- Partly supportedcites Bullock et al., 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract says partisan survey answers may reflect expressive cheerleading rather than sincere beliefs. But the Conclusion says cheerleading can be either informed or uninformed, so the claim overstates the account by saying partisans are well informed. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not matchedcites Scha↵ner and Luks, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✗ Asserted: fails✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, in Column 1 the point estimate for the e↵ect of incentives on the probability of selecting a co-partisan news source is negative, but substantively small and indistinguishable from zero (-0.003, 95% Confidence Interval [-0.03, 0.02]).”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Partisan Divides in News Choice
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the partisan gap in information closes due to incentives, it is by no means eliminated.Large partisan divisions remain in the incentivized condition.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Results: Partisan Divides in Information
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the availability of incentives reduces partisan gaps on the information items, large divides remain even in the presence of incentives.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Incorporating Respondent Certainty About Misinformation
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This pattern of no sizeable or statistically significant e↵ects of incentives on information source selection continues when we consider the probability of selecting an expert source (Column 2), one of the two mainstream news sources that was available (Column 3) or an out-partisan news source (Column 4).”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Partisan Divides in News Choice
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is some minor variation in the initial magnitude of these partisan divides across these di↵erent specifications, but the e↵ect of incentives remains similar and statistically significant e↵ect across all three.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Results: Partisan Divides in Information
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the interaction between partisanship and the incentive treatment is negative and statistically significant (-0.10, 95% Confidence Interval [-.12, -.08]).”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Results: Partisan Divides in Information
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across the news selections made in the control condition of the surveys (i.e., those where respondents were not assigned incentives for correct answers to the information questions), 29% of selections went to a co-partisan source, 26% went to the expert source, 38% to one of the two mainstream news sources and only 7% to an out-party source.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Partisan Divides in News Choice
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also note that, when isolating the information items about unemployment in Appendix Table B.1, we observe a similar pattern of findings to previous work that considers this topic.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Results: Partisan Divides in Information
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This remaining gap of .27(95% Confidence Interval [0.24, 0.30]) is both substantial and statistically significant.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Incorporating Respondent Certainty About Misinformation
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the initial magnitude of these partisan divides is smaller across the various specifications in this more stringent coding, the pattern is largely consistent with our earlier analysis.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Incorporating Respondent Certainty About Misinformation
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, respondents expressed a relatively high degree of certainty in their answers to the information questions.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > B.6 Distribution of Response Certainty by Item
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the initial magnitude of these partisan divides is smaller across the various specifications in this more stringent coding, the pattern is largely consistent with our earlier analysis.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > B.9 Isolating Confidently Held Misinformation
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using this alternative outcome, we observe a similar pattern to the findings reported in the main text.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > B.10 Incorporating Response Direction and Certainty
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These divides prove durable to the presence of incentives and when examined outside the survey environment.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > They received
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We note this result does not hold in any of the other pooled or subset analyses we consider (or if we estimate the e↵ects of these features in Study 1 without including sampling weights)”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > B.5 E↵ects of Incentives on News Choice
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table B7 replicates this analysis for Republicans, again finding no substantively significant e↵ect of incentives on news choice.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > B.5 E↵ects of Incentives on News Choice
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We note that when we isolate the unemployment items, our findings resemble earlier studies.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Additional information
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The availability of incentives reduced, but did not eliminate, the partisan divide in information.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Implications for Political Misinformation
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The initial partisan divide over these items is slightly smaller in the second survey relative to the first.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > B.3 E↵ects of Incentives Using Sampling Weights
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We observe web tracking data for 46% of our pooled sample across the two surveys.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Additional information
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This analysis shows a largely similar pattern of findings across the two surveys as we find in our pooled analysis in the main text.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > B.3 E↵ects of Incentives Using Sampling Weights
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although we note our results remain similar when we reanalyze the experiments in each survey individually using the sampling weights provided by YouGov (See Appendix B)”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Additional information
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 2Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because there was a panel structure to the survey data, in which 954 respondents were re-interviewed and appeared in both, the total number of unique respondents is less than the sum of respondents across the two survey waves.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Additional information
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We observed this pattern for both Democrats and Republicans, depending on the partisan valence of the topic.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Implications for Political Misinformation
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When the outcome variable is operationalized in this way, the point estimate for this group falls in between those for Democrats and Republicans, although it does not reach statistical significance.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > B.4 Responsiveness of Independents to Incentives
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to note that in this subset of the data and approach to analysis we observe a decline in co-partisan news choice selection and an increase in the probability of selecting neutral news sources.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > B.5 E↵ects of Incentives on News Choice
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the 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).”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Motivated Reasoning and Misinformation
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Thorson, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Swire et al., 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Flynn and Krupnikov, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“These surveys use the firm's standard procedure of drawing a sample from its panel that is matched to the voting-age population on key demographic characteristics (e.g., Vavreck and Iyengar, 2011).”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Data
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vavreck and Iyengar, 2011 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, following earlier studies, we randomly assign survey respondents to either receive or not receive incentives for correctly answering political knowledge questions.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Research Design
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly for what follows, from this perspective the divides in political information that result from motivated reasoning are real and troubling.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Motivated Reasoning and Misinformation
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, our findings support the motivated reasoning interpretation of misinformation; partisans seek out information with congenial slant and sincerely adopt inaccurate beliefs that cast their party in a favorable light.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our design does not let us distinguish motivated reasoning from these other processes.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Motivated Reasoning and Misinformation
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because of their similar formats, we pool the surveys together for analysis, although in Appendix B we note the results are no di↵erent when we consider the surveys separately.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Data
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the same time, there is little evidence this contributes to our findings, particularly as we see similar results in robustness checks that incorporate survey weights to correct for these deviations between our realized sample and nationally-representative targets (See Appendix B).”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Data
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, there is agreement that on many political information questions Democrats and Republicans gravitate to survey responses that cast their party in a favorable light.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Misinformation as Partisan Cheerleading
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We note here that the unweighted sample used in our primary analysis is older and more highly educated than a nationally-representative sample would be (see Table A1 for demographic information).”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Data
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We note our evidence cannot speak to the correspondence between survey-based and behavioral measures of media exposure in these other settings, which represent a setting for future work.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > They received
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This pattern is expected, as independents lack the directional pressures, either to engage in motivated reasoning or cheerlead for their party, that face partisan respondents across the set of items focused on here.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > B.4 Responsiveness of Independents to Incentives
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One challenge to the validity of this motivated reasoning interpretation is that we cannot address the possibility that, for some partisans, the “psychic” rewards for cheerleading exceed the monetary rewards available in our studies.This would mean the incentive conditions in our design still contain some degree of insincere cheerleading.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Implications for Political Misinformation
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The articles that respondents encountered in the survey were edited to ensure they were of similar length (roughly 250-300 words) for each information source.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Additional information
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The available sample here (840) is slightly smaller than the entire web tra c sample because 15 respondents in the web tra c sample did not visit any of the political websites on our list, meaning we are unable to categorize the partisan slant of their real-world political media exposure.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > C.3 Explaining Survey-Based News Choice
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This appears to be, in part, because including the sampling weights increases the amount of co-partisan source selection in the control group.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > B.5 E↵ects of Incentives on News Choice
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have interpreted the magnitude of the partisan information divide and the stability of partisans' preferences for congenial information as evidence of motivated reasoning stemming from polarization --the interpretation commonly given in the misinformation literature.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Methodological Implications
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These articles were all based on content that had originally appeared from the source it was attributed to in the survey.This was done to ensure each article could be realistically viewed as coming from that outlet and to ensure the choice set in the study reflected the real-world array of news coverage available on that topic from media outlets with di↵ering ideological reputations.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Additional information
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Respondents were recruited using YouGov's standard approach of matching a non-representative online sample to a nationally representative target.”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > Additional information
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We emphasize here that our measure only captures web browsing conducted from desktop computers.This misses other forms of media use (e.g., mobile web browsing and cable television consumption).”
§ Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading? > They received
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The partisan leanings of the news sources (MSNBC/Huffington Post as left-leaning, Fox News/Breitbart as right-leaning, CNN/New York Times as mainstream) are as categorized.
“In each case, respondents could choose to read information from one left-leaning source (i.e., MSNBC or Hu ngton Post), one right-leaning source (i.e., Fox News or Breitbart), one source with specialized expertise (e.g., excerpts from a Bureau of Labor Statistics press release in the case of a question about the unemployment rate), or from a pair of mainstream news sources (i.e., CNN, New York Tim”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Comprehension of information provided by expert sources requires greater effort.
“On the assumption that comprehension of information provided by expert sources requires greater e↵ort”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In the main text comparison, visits to CNN and the New York Times are considered neutral from the perspective of partisans by giving them a similar code to the expert sources.
“In the comparison between survey-based and real-world news choice presented in the main text, we consider visits to CNN and the New York Times to be neutral, from the perspective of partisans, by giving them a similar code to the expert sources.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In public perceptions of perceived slant and audience partisanship, the mainstream outlets CNN and the New York Times appear similar to left-leaning news sources such as Huffington Post and MSNBC.
“We recognize that, in public perceptions of their perceived slant and the partisanship of their audiences, the mainstream outlets we consider (i.e., CNN and the New York Times) appear similar to the left-leaning news sources (i.e., Hu ngton Post and MSNBC).”
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“We recruited 500 participants from the YouGov survey platform, a representative sampling platform that matches a randomly-drawn sampling frame of the U.S. population with members from their opt-in respondents based on a large set of variables38,39; the platform has been widely validated. 40”
From Public opinion on types of voice systems for older adults (2024) · cites this paper as [39]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Pooled sample size conflicts with wave sizes and overlap
MinorTable A1 reports 1,017 and 1,754 respondents in the two waves and 1,852 unique pooled respondents. If 954 respondents appeared in both waves, those wave sizes imply 1,017 + 1,754 − 954 = 1,817 unique respondents, 35 fewer than reported.
“Sample Size 64600 1852 1017 1754”
“Because there was a panel structure to the survey data, in which 954 respondents were re-interviewed and appeared in both, the total number of unique respondents is less than the sum of respondents across the two survey waves.”
Citations
Cites
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9781503620766 · Cited by 24,241
An Economic Theory of Democracy.
Banfield, E. C., & Downs, A. J. (1958) · Midwest Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2109186 · Cited by 18,558
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Morvan, C., & O’Connor, A. (2017) · Macat Library eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781912282432 · Cited by 18,284
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
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
Lord, 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 · cited 1×
“Psychologists have uncovered several information-processing heuristics including confirmatory bias and motivated skepticism (Lord et al., 1979; Kunda, 1990) that allow individuals to protect their identity from dissonant information.”
BackgroundExposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaa1160 · Cited by 3,245 · cited 1×
“23 for a set of 452 news websites presented in Bakshy et al. (2015).14 The alignment scores reflect the partisanship of news domains based on the ideology of individuals who shared their content on Facebook.”
BackgroundIyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038 · Cited by 2,996
Self-citationWicker, A. W. (1969) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1969.tb00619.x · Cited by 2,152
What Americans know about politics and why it matters
(1996) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-0582 · Cited by 2,090
Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption
Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfw006 · Cited by 1,992 · cited 3×
“As in Peterson et al. ND, we also restrict our analysis of several high-tra c websites that contain both news and non-news content (i.e., Yahoo, MSN and AOL) to tra c to the news portions of those websites.”
BackgroundInfluentialUncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity
Mason, L. (2018) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226524689.001.0001 · Cited by 1,985
Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use
Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x · Cited by 1,940
Self-citationYoung, K. (2016) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315008189 · Cited by 1,605
How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation
DRUCKMAN, J. N., PETERSON, E., & SLOTHUUS, R. (2013) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055412000500 · Cited by 1,569 · cited 1×
“Partisan cues from polarized elites powerfully influence the candidate evaluations and policy views of their supporters (Levendusky, 2010; Druckman et al., 2013).”
BackgroundSelf-citationBeyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions
Bartels, L. M. (2002) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1021226224601 · Cited by 1,468 · cited 2×
“In an influential paper, Bartels (2002) identified systematic partisan biases in answers to factual questions dating back to the 1980s.”
BackgroundDo People Mean What They Say? Implications for Subjective Survey Data
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2001) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.91.2.67 · Cited by 1,391
Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139032490 · Cited by 1,281
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
Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship
Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., & Rich, R. F. (2000) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1111/0022-3816.00033 · Cited by 1,167 · cited 2×
“Only later did researchers consider the possibility that some respondents were misinformed (Kuklinski et al., 2000) and that incorrect answers to knowledge questions reflected partisan bias rather than simple ignorance.”
BackgroundMedia and Political Polarization
Prior, M. (2013) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135242 · Cited by 1,125
Stroud, N. J. (2011) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755509.001.0001 · Cited by 950
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 · cited 1×
“…emphasizes that the material benefits of political participation that accrue to individuals are trivial (Downs, 1957) and, absent an express admonition to avoid bias, previous studies find that information processing appears to resemble motivated reasoning (Bolsen et al., 2014; Prior et al., 2015).”
BackgroundHow Conditioning on Posttreatment Variables Can Ruin Your Experiment and What to Do about It
Montgomery, J. M., Nyhan, B., & Torres, M. (2018) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12357 · Cited by 800 · cited 1×
“7If incentives a↵ect how certain respondents are of their responses, this specification risks inducing post-treatment bias in our estimates (see e.g., Montgomery et al., 2018).”
ResultConspiracy Endorsement as Motivated Reasoning: The Moderating Roles of Political Knowledge and Trust
Miller, J. M., Saunders, K. L., & Farhart, C. E. (2015) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12234 · Cited by 741 · cited 2×
“…describe the process producing sincerely held inaccurate beliefs follows the vast misinformation literature in which motivated reasoning is identified as “the most useful framework for understanding misperceptions about politics” (Flynn, Nyhan and Reifler, 2017, 131; see also Miller et al., 2016).”
BackgroundThe American People and Foreign Policy.
Moore, B., & Almond, G. A. (1950) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2086935 · Cited by 734
The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation
Druckman, J. N., & McGrath, M. C. (2019) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0360-1 · Cited by 733
Partisan bias in factual beliefs about politics
Bullock, J. G., Gerber, A. S., Hill, S. J., & Huber, G. A. (2015) · Quarterly Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1561/100.00014074 · Cited by 686
Same Facts, Different Interpretations: Partisan Motivation and Opinion on Iraq
Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Peyton, B., & Verkuilen, J. (2007) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00601.x · Cited by 683
Belief Echoes: The Persistent Effects of Corrected Misinformation
Thorson, E. A. (2015) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2015.1102187 · Cited by 675
Political homophily in social relationships: evidence from online dating behavior
Huber, G. A., & Malhotra, N. (2017) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/687533 · Cited by 664
Demand Effects in Survey Experiments: An Empirical Assessment
MUMMOLO, J., & PETERSON, E. (2019) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055418000837 · Cited by 548
Self-citationProcessing political misinformation: comprehending the Trump phenomenon
Swire‐Thompson, B., Berinsky, A. J., Lewandowsky, S., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2017) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.160802 · Cited by 542 · cited 1×
“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).”
BackgroundRumors and Health Care Reform: Experiments in Political Misinformation
Berinsky, A. J. (2015) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123415000186 · Cited by 511
Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid?
BARABAS, J., & JERIT, J. (2010) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055410000092 · Cited by 481 · cited 1×
“A fundamental limitation of survey experimental designs is the generalizability of behavior observed in the experimental context (Barabas and Jerit, 2010).”
BackgroundClearer Cues, More Consistent Voters: A Benefit of Elite Polarization
Levendusky, M. S. (2010) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-009-9094-0 · Cited by 438
Partisan Perceptual Bias and the Information Environment
Jerit, J., & Barabas, J. (2012) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1017/s0022381612000187 · Cited by 425
Prior, M., Sood, G., & Khanna, K. (2015) · Quarterly Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1561/100.00014127 · Cited by 418 · cited 12×
“In this respect our study is similar to the first study in Bullock et al. (2015) and Prior et al. (2015), but departs from the conditions in the second study of Bullock et al. (2015) in which partisan divides over fact decline when a “Don’t know” option is made available.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialBisgaard, M. (2015) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/681591 · Cited by 347 · cited 1×
“Bartels concluded partisans’ perceptions of the economy, rather than reflecting real-world conditions, showed “substantial partisan bias” (p. 136; see also Scha↵ner and Roche, 2016; Bisgaard, 2015).”
BackgroundUncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity
Mason, L. (2018) · Cited by 347
Do People Mean What They Say? Implications for Subjective Survey DataPreprint
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2001) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.260131 · Cited by 337 · cited 1×
“Relative to other comparisons of attitudes or behaviors observed within survey settings and real-world behavior (see, for instance, Wicker, 1969; Bertrand and Mullainathan, 2001), this represents an impressive degree of correspondence.”
BackgroundMoney, Time, and Political Knowledge: Distinguishing Quick Recall and Political Learning Skills
Prior, M., & Lupia, A. (2008) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00306.x · Cited by 297
Improving Media Effects Research through Better Measurement of News Exposure
Prior, M. (2009) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1017/s0022381609090781 · Cited by 294
Partisanship in a Social Setting
Klar, S. (2014) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12087 · Cited by 290
A Study of Thinking.J. S. Bruner , J. J. Goodnow , G. A. Austin
Festinger, L. (1957) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/222197 · Cited by 285
Why People “Don’t Trust the Evidence”: Motivated Reasoning and Scientific Beliefs
Kraft, P. W., Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2015) · The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/0002716214554758 · Cited by 283 · cited 3×
“…partisans’ willingness to ignore or counter-argue with credible facts that cast aspersions on their party or party leaders and, conversely, to uncritically accept false information that reflects favorably on their side (Gaines et al., 2007; Shapiro and Block-Elkon, 2008; Kraft et al., 2015).”
BackgroundPartisan Elites as Culprits? How Party Cues Shape Partisan Perceptual Gaps
Bisgaard, M., & Slothuus, R. (2018) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12349 · Cited by 269
Jerit, J., & Zhao, Y. (2020) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032814 · Cited by 263
The Home as a Political Fortress: Family Agreement in an Era of Polarization
Iyengar, S., Konitzer, T., & Tedin, K. L. (2018) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/698929 · Cited by 261 · cited 2×
“, 2012; Mason, 2018) that they avoid social interactions with out-party members (Huber and Malhotra, 2017; Iyengar et al., 2018).”
BackgroundSelf-citationEdlin, A. S., Gelman, A., & Kaplan, N. J. (2007) · Rationality and Society · doi:10.1177/1043463107077384 · Cited by 255 · cited 1×
“On the other hand, the material incentives for accuracy available in our study are likely weaker than those facing voters who perceive substantial societal stakes in an election outcome (Edlin et al., 2007) or feel social pressure to accurately process information (Klar, 2014).”
BackgroundDo Facts Matter? Information and Misinformation in American Politics
Hochschild, J. L., & Einstein, K. L. (2015) · Political Science Quarterly · doi:10.1002/polq.12398 · Cited by 218
Berinsky, A. J. (2017) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/694258 · Cited by 217 · cited 3×
“Contrary to these studies, recent work on the acceptance of rumors (Berinsky, 2018) reaches the conclusion that incentives and related interventions designed to increase the accuracy of survey responses have little impact on strongly valenced partisan beliefs.”
BackgroundResultWhy the "Death Panel" Myth Wouldn't Die: Misinformation in the Health Care Reform Debate
Nyhan, B. J. (2010) · The Forum · doi:10.2202/1540-8884.1354 · Cited by 198
Misinformation or Expressive Responding?
Schaffner, B. F., & Luks, S. (2017) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfx042 · Cited by 188
Garrett, R. K., Weeks, B. E., & Neo, R. L. (2016) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/jcc4.12164 · Cited by 184
Misinformation and Motivated Reasoning: Responses to Economic News in a Politicized Environment
Schaffner, B. F., & Roche, C. (2016) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfw043 · Cited by 180
DO THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES? PARTISAN DISAGREEMENT AS A CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE
Shapiro, R. Y., & Bloch‐Elkon, Y. (2008) · Critical Review · doi:10.1080/08913810802316373 · Cited by 178
Partisan Bias, Economic Expectations, and Household Spending
Mian, A., Sufi, A., & Khoshkhou, N. (2021) · The Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest_a_01056 · Cited by 177
Josh Pasek, B., Stark, T., Krosnick, J. A., & Tompson, T. N. (2014) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2014.09.009 · Cited by 168 · cited 1×
“For this reason, several studies note the need to consider the certainty with which respondents hold their beliefs (e.g., Pasek et al., 2015; Graham, ND).”
BackgroundBullock, J. G., & Lenz, G. (2019) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-050904 · Cited by 165
Partisan selective exposure in online news consumption: evidence from the 2016 presidential campaign
Peterson, E., Goel, S., & Iyengar, S. (2019) · Political Science Research and Methods · doi:10.1017/psrm.2019.55 · Cited by 156
Self-citationMeasure for Measure: An Experimental Test of Online Political Media Exposure
Guess, A. M. (2014) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpu010 · Cited by 130
Economic Behavior and the Partisan Perceptual Screen
McGrath, M. C. (2017) · Quarterly Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1561/100.00015100 · Cited by 122
The Consequences of Partisanship in Economic Perceptions
Enns, P. K., Kellstedt, P. M., & McAvoy, G. E. (2012) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfs016 · Cited by 118
Porter, E. V., & Wood, T. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108688338 · Cited by 112
Voting as a Rational Choice: Why and How People Vote to Improve the Well-Being of Others
Edlin, A. S., Gelman, A., & Kaplan, N. J. (2007) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w13562 · Cited by 89
Self-Awareness of Political Knowledge
GRAHAM, M. H. (2018) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9499-8 · Cited by 60
Lippmann, W. (1923) · The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/00005053-192301000-00118 · Cited by 59
False Alarm: The Truth About Political Mistruths in the Trump Era
Porter, E. V., & Wood, T. (2019) · Cited by 57
Identifying the Effect of Political Rumor Diffusion Using Variations in Survey Timing
Kim, J. W., & Kim, E. (2019) · Quarterly Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1561/100.00017138 · Cited by 52
The Future of Political Communication Research: Online Panels and Experimentation
Vavreck, L., & Iyengar, S. (2011) · The Oxford Handbook of American Public Opinion and the Media · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199545636.003.0010 · Cited by 26
Self-citationPublic Opinion and Foreign Policy
Brogan, D. W. (1949) · International Affairs · doi:10.2307/3018540 · Cited by 18
A Gap in Our Understanding? Reconsidering the Evidence for Partisan Knowledge Gaps
Roush, C. E., & Sood, G. (2022) · Quarterly Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1561/100.00020178 · Cited by 9
Misinformation and the Justification of Socially Undesirable Preferences
Flynn, D. J., & Krupnikov, Y. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Political Science · doi:10.1017/xps.2018.12 · Cited by 7 · cited 1×
“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).”
BackgroundGuess, A. M. (2020) · Harvard Dataverse · doi:10.7910/dvn/zfe3ne · Cited by 1
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Iyengar, Shanto, Gaurav Sood and Yphtach Lelkes. 2012. "A↵ect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization." Public Opinion Quarterly 76(3): 405-431.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Designing Information Provision Experiments
Haaland, I., Roth, C., & Wohlfart, J. (2023) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.20211658 · Cited by 577
Conservatives’ susceptibility to political misperceptions
Garrett, R. K., & Bond, R. M. (2021) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abf1234 · Cited by 193
Megastudy testing 25 treatments to reduce antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity
Voelkel, J. G., Stagnaro, M. N., Chu, J. Y., Pink, S. L., Mernyk, J. S., Redekopp, C., Ghezae, I., Cashman, M., Adjodah, D., Allen, L. G., et al. (2024) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adh4764 · Cited by 174
Megastudy testing 25 treatments to reduce antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity
Voelkel, J. G., Stagnaro, M., Chu, J., Pink, S. L., Mernyk, J. S., Redekopp, C., Ghezae, I., Cashman, M., Adjodah, D., Allen, L., et al. (2023) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/y79u5 · Cited by 174
Online searches to evaluate misinformation can increase its perceived veracity
Aslett, K., Sanderson, Z., Godel, W., Persily, N., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. A. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06883-y · Cited by 151
Metadata
- Authors
- Peterson, E., & Iyengar, S.
- Affiliations
- Texas A&M University (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Peterson, Erik
- Iyengar, Shanto
- Venue
- American Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- Center for Open Science
- Published
- 2019-10-29
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 133-147
- ISSN
- 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3036144303
- Semantic Scholar
- b411421cb65bc4fbfaf5893995d7b481907711da
- Cited by
- 241
- References
- 72
- Citations by year
- 2026: 48 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 38.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- American Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion)
- SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
- 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
- motivated reasoning, partisan polarization, information seeking, misinformation, political information sources, survey incentives, web browsing data
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-23, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-23 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
