References.bib

@article{PennycookRand2017b,
abstract = {Empiric evidence that fact-checking of fake news done by `FB is not working. What are effective techniques for combating belief in fake news? Tagging fake articles with " Disputed by 3 rd party fact-checkers " warnings and making articles' sources more salient by adding publisher logos are two approaches that have received large-scale rollouts on social media in recent months. Here we assess the effect of these interventions on perceptions of accuracy across seven experiments (total N=7,534). With respect to disputed warnings, we find that tagging articles as disputed did significantly reduce their perceived accuracy relative to a control without tags, but only modestly (d=.20, 3.7 percentage point decrease in headlines judged as accurate). Furthermore, we find a backfire effect – particularly among Trump supporters and those under 26 years of age – whereby untagged fake news stories are seen as more accurate than in the control. We also find a similar spillover effect for real news, whose perceived accuracy is increased by the presence of disputed tags on other headlines. With respect to source salience, we find no evidence that adding a banner with the logo of the headline's publisher had any impact on accuracy judgments whatsoever. Together, these results suggest that the currently deployed approaches are not nearly enough to effectively undermine belief in fake news, and new (empirically supported) strategies are needed.},
author = {Pennycook, Gordon and Rand, David G},
keywords = {fact-checking,fake news,misinformation,news media,social media,source},
pages = {1--51},
title = {{Assessing the effect of "disputed" warnings and source salience on perceptions of fake news accuracy}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Blairetal2019,
abstract = {Researchers need to select high-quality research designs and communicate those designs clearly to readers. Both tasks are difficult. We provide a framework for formally declaring the analytically relevant features of a research design in a demonstrably complete manner, with applications to qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research. The approach to design declaration we describe requires defining a model of the world (M), an inquiry (I), a data strategy (D), and an answer strategy (A). Declaration of these features in code provides sufficient information for researchers and readers to use Monte Carlo techniques to diagnose properties such as power, bias, accuracy of qualitative causal inferences, and other diagnosands. Ex ante declarations can be used to improve designs and facilitate preregistration, analysis, and reconciliation of intended and actual analyses. Ex post declarations are useful for describing, sharing, reanalyzing, and critiquing existing designs. We provide open-source software, DeclareDesign, to implement the proposed approach.},
author = {Blair, Graeme and Cooper, Jasper and Coppock, Alexander and Humphreys, Macartan},
doi = {10.1017/S0003055419000194},
issn = {15375943},
journal = {American Political Science Review},
number = {3},
pages = {838--859},
title = {{Declaring and diagnosing research designs}},
volume = {113},
year = {2019}
}

@incollection{AalbergCurran2012,
address = {New York, NY},
author = {Aalberg, Toril and Curran, James},
booktitle = {How Media Inform Democracy: A Comparative Approach},
pages = {3--15},
publisher = {Routledge},
title = {{How Media Inform Democracy: Central Debates}},
year = {2012}
}
@article{Sundar1998,
abstract = {Are quoted sources in online news as psychologically meaningful as those in printed and broadcast news? A within-subjects experiment was designed to answer this question. On a web site, forty-eight subjects read three online news stories with quotes and three stories without source attribution. They rated stories with quotes significantly higher in credibility and quality than identical stories without quotes. However, quotes did not seem to affect their ratings of liking for - and representativeness (newsworthiness) of - online news.},
author = {Sundar, S Shyam},
doi = {10.1177/107769909807500108},
isbn = {10776990},
issn = {1077-6990},
journal = {Journalism {\&} Mass Communication Quarterly},
keywords = {Experiment,Quotes,Source credibility},
mendeley-tags = {Experiment,Quotes,Source credibility},
number = {1},
pages = {55--68},
pmid = {807036},
title = {{Effect of Source Attribution on Perception of Online News Stories}},
volume = {75},
year = {1998}
}
@article{Arendtetal2019,
author = {Arendt, Florian and Haim, Mario and Beck, Julia},
doi = {10.1007/s11616-019-00484-4},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Arendt et al. (2019).pdf:pdf},
issn = {0033-4006},
journal = {Publizistik},
number = {2},
pages = {181--204},
title = {{Fake News, Warnhinweise und perzipierter Wahrheitsgehalt: Zur unterschiedlichen Anf{\"{a}}lligkeit f{\"{u}}r Falschmeldungen in Abh{\"{a}}ngigkeit von der politischen OrientierungFake news, warning messages, and perceived truth value: investigating the differential suscept}},
volume = {64},
year = {2019}
}
@article{VragaBode2017,
abstract = {Social media are often criticized as serving as a source of misinformation, but in this study we examine how they may also function to correct misperceptions on an emerging health issue. We use an experimental design to consider social correction that occurs via peers, testing both the type of correction (i.e., whether a source is provided or not) and the platform on which the correction occurs (i.e., Facebook versus Twitter). Our results suggest that a source is necessary to correct misperceptions about the causes of the Zika virus on both Facebook and Twitter, but the mechanism by which such correction occurs differs across platforms. Implications for successful social media campaigns to address health misinformation are addressed.},
author = {Vraga, Emily K. and Bode, Leticia},
doi = {10.1080/1369118X.2017.1313883},
issn = {1369-118X},
journal = {Information, Communication {\&} Society},
pages = {1--17},
title = {{I do not believe you: how providing a source corrects health misperceptions across social media platforms}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Kuklinskietal2000,
abstract = {Scholars have documented the deficiencies in political knowledge among American citizens. An- other problem, misinformation, has received less attention. People are misinformed when they con- fidently hold wrong beliefs. We present evidence of misinformation about welfare and show that this misinformation acts as an obstacle to educating the public with correct facts. Moreover, wide- spread misinformation can lead to collective preferences that are far different from those that would exist if people were correctly informed. The misinformation phenomenon has implications for two currently influential scholarly literatures: the study of political heuristics and the study of elite per- suasion and issue framing.},
author = {Kuklinski, James H. and Quirk, Paul J. and Jerit, Jennifer and Schwieder, David and Rich, Robert F.},
doi = {10.1111/0022-3816.00033},
journal = {Journal of Politics},
keywords = {Beliefs,Misbeliefs,Misinformation,Preferences,Survey experiment},
mendeley-tags = {Beliefs,Misbeliefs,Misinformation,Preferences,Survey experiment},
number = {3},
pages = {790--816},
title = {{Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship}},
volume = {62},
year = {2000}
}
@article{Roush2019,
author = {Roush, Carolyn E},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Roush {\&} Sood (2019).pdf:pdf},
title = {{A Gap in Our Understanding ? Reconsidering the Evidence for Partisan Knowledge Gaps}},
year = {2019}
}
@inproceedings{Gabielkovetal2016,
author = {Gabielkov, Maksym and Ramachandran, Arthi and Chaintreau, Augustin},
booktitle = {ACM SIGMETRICS/IFIP Performance 2016},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Gabielkov et al. - 2016 - Social Clicks What and Who Gets Read on Twitter.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {9781450342667},
series = {ACM SIGMETRICS / IFIP Performance 2016},
title = {{Social Clicks: What and Who Gets Read on Twitter?}},
year = {2016}
}
@techreport{Pew2017,
author = {{Pew Research Center}},
institution = {Pew Research Center},
title = {{News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2017}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Bisgaard2019,
abstract = {Scholars often evaluate citizens' democratic competence by focusing on their ability to get relevant facts right. In this article, I show why this approach can yield misleading conclusions about citizen competence. I argue that although citizens with strong partisan loyalties might be forced to accept the same facts, they find alternative ways to rationalize reality. One such way, I show, is through the selective attribution of credit and blame. With four randomized experiments, conducted in diverse national settings and containing closed‐ as well as open‐ended questions, I find that as partisans correctly updated economic beliefs to reflect new facts, they conversely attributed responsibility in a highly selective fashion. Although partisans might acknowledge the same facts, they are apt in seizing on and producing attributional arguments that fit their preferred worldviews.},
author = {Bisgaard, Martin},
doi = {10.1111/ajps.12432},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Bisgaard (2019).pdf:pdf},
issn = {15405907},
journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
number = {0},
pages = {1--17},
title = {{How Getting the Facts Right Can Fuel Partisan-Motivated Reasoning}},
volume = {00},
year = {2019}
}
@article{Horne2019,
author = {Horne, Zachary and Duran, Nicholas},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Solanki2019.pdf:pdf},
number = {May},
title = {{No Title}},
year = {2019}
}
@article{Burkhardt2017,
author = {Burkhardt, Joanna M.},
journal = {Library Technology Reports},
number = {8},
pages = {5--9},
title = {{History of Fake News}},
volume = {53},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Guilbeaultetal2018,
abstract = {Scientific communications about climate change are frequently misinterpreted due to motivated reasoning, which leads some people to misconstrue climate data in ways that conflict with the intended message of climate scientists. Attempts to reduce partisan bias through bipartisan communication networks have found that exposure to diverse political views can exacerbate bias. Here, we find that belief exchange in structured bipartisan networks can significantly improve the ability of both conservatives and liberals to interpret climate data, eliminating belief polarization. We also find that social learning can be reduced, and polarization maintained, when the salience of partisanship is increased, either through exposure to the logos of political parties or through exposure to political identity markers.Vital scientific communications are frequently misinterpreted by the lay public as a result of motivated reasoning, where people misconstrue data to fit their political and psychological biases. In the case of climate change, some people have been found to systematically misinterpret climate data in ways that conflict with the intended message of climate scientists. While prior studies have attempted to reduce motivated reasoning through bipartisan communication networks, these networks have also been found to exacerbate bias. Popular theories hold that bipartisan networks amplify bias by exposing people to opposing beliefs. These theories are in tension with collective intelligence research, which shows that exchanging beliefs in social networks can facilitate social learning, thereby improving individual and group judgments. However, prior experiments in collective intelligence have relied almost exclusively on neutral questions that do not engage motivated reasoning. Using Amazon's Mechanical Turk, we conducted an online experiment to test how bipartisan social networks can influence subjects' interpretation of climate communications from NASA. Here, we show that exposure to opposing beliefs in structured bipartisan social networks substantially improved the accuracy of judgments among both conservatives and liberals, eliminating belief polarization. However, we also find that social learning can be reduced, and belief polarization maintained, as a result of partisan priming. We find that increasing the salience of partisanship during communication, both through exposure to the logos of political parties and through exposure to the political identities of network peers, can significantly reduce social learning.},
author = {Guilbeault, Douglas and Becker, Joshua and Centola, Damon},
doi = {10.1073/pnas.1722664115},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Guilbeault et al (2018).pdf:pdf},
issn = {0027-8424},
journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
number = {39},
pages = {9714--9719},
title = {{Social learning and partisan bias in the interpretation of climate trends}},
volume = {115},
year = {2018}
}
@article{Gerhart2017,
author = {Torres, Russell and Gerhart, Natalie and Negahban, Arash},
journal = {Twenty-third Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston},
title = {{Combatting Fake News : An Investigation of Individuals ' Information Verification Behaviors on Social Networking Sites}},
year = {2017}
}
@unpublished{BauerClemm2019,
author = {Bauer, Paul C. and {Clemm von Hohenberg}, Bernhard},
title = {{Building Trust in Fake News: An Experiment}},
year = {2019}
}
@article{Unkelbach2009,
abstract = {The subjective impression that statements are true increases when statements are presented repeatedly. There are two sources for this truth effect: An increase in validity based on recollection (a controlled process) and increase in processing fluency due to repeated exposure (an automatic process). Using multinomial processing trees (MPT), we present a comprehensive model of the truth effect. Furthermore, we show that whilst the increase in processing fluency is indeed automatic, the interpretation and use of that experience is not. Experiment 1 demonstrates the standard use of the fluency experience and Experiment 2 demonstrates that people can change the interpretation of the experience according to its ecological validity. By implication, the truth effect represents the adaptive usage of feedback received from internal processes. {\textcopyright} 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.},
author = {Unkelbach, Christian and Stahl, Christoph},
doi = {10.1016/j.concog.2008.09.006},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/UnkelbachStahl2009.pdf:pdf},
issn = {10538100},
journal = {Consciousness and Cognition},
keywords = {Cue learning,Process-dissociation,Processing fluency,Truth judgments},
number = {1},
pages = {22--38},
publisher = {Elsevier Inc.},
title = {{A multinomial modeling approach to dissociate different components of the truth effect}},
volume = {18},
year = {2009}
}
@article{Dholakia1977,
author = {Dholakia, Ruby Roy and Sternthal, Brian},
journal = {Journal of Consumer Research},
number = {4},
pages = {223--232},
title = {{Highly Credible Sources: Persuasive Facilitators or Persuasive Liabilities?}},
volume = {3},
year = {1977}
}
@unpublished{Woolley2017,
author = {Woolley, Samuel C and Howard, Philip N},
title = {{Computational Propaganda Worldwide: Executive Summary}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{BarabasJerit2009,
author = {Barabas, Jason and Jerit, Jennifer},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Barabas {\&} Jerrit (2009).pdf:pdf},
journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
number = {1},
pages = {73--89},
title = {{Estimating the Causal Effects of Media Coverage on Policy-Specific Knowledge}},
volume = {53},
year = {2009}
}
@article{Bolsenetal2014,
abstract = {Political parties play a vital role in democracies by linking citizens to their representatives. Nonetheless, a longstanding concern is that partisan identification slants decision-making. Citizens may support (oppose) policies that they would otherwise oppose (support) in the absence of an endorsement from a political party—this is due in large part to what is called partisan motivated reasoning where individuals interpret information through the lens of their party commitment. We explore partisan motivated reasoning in a survey experiment focusing on support for an energy law. We identify two politically relevant factors that condition partisan motivated reasoning: (1) an explicit inducement to form an “accurate” opinion, and (2) cross-partisan, but not consensus, bipartisan support for the law. We further provide evidence of how partisan motivated reasoning works psychologically and affects opinion strength. We conclude by discussing the implications of our results for understanding opinion formation and the overall quality of citizens' opinions.},
author = {Bolsen, Toby and Druckman, James N. and Cook, Fay Lomax},
doi = {10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0},
eprint = {arXiv:1011.1669v3},
isbn = {0190-9320},
issn = {01909320},
journal = {Political Behavior},
keywords = {Experiment,Information,Motivated reasoning,Opinions,Parties,Partisan trust,Partisanship},
mendeley-tags = {Experiment,Information,Motivated reasoning,Opinions,Partisanship},
number = {2},
pages = {235--262},
pmid = {25246403},
title = {{The Influence of Partisan Motivated Reasoning on Public Opinion}},
volume = {36},
year = {2014}
}
@unpublished{SurmaOliver2018,
author = {Surma, Katherine and Oliver, Eric},
title = {{Believe It or Not? Credulity, Skepticism, and Misinformation in the American Public}},
year = {2018}
}
@article{ChiaChang2017,
abstract = {The interplay between news coverage of preelection polls and voters' assessments of bias has been well documented. Less known, but theoretically more important, is how it may play out in a media context that highly parallels political camps. The 2012 Taiwanese presidential election provides an ideal case to observe how voters' perception of hostile poll coverage might be affected by media partisanship in election campaigns. Against this backdrop, we first confirmed that voters reported greater perceptions of hostile bias when seeing disagreeable poll results. The polarized and divided media setting further shaped voters' reactions to poll coverage. Voters saw greater hostile poll bias in out-group media than in in-group media. Consequences of such perceived hostility, however, appeared inconsistent and mixed. {\textcopyright} The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The World Association for Public Opinion Research. All rights reserved.},
author = {Chia, Stella C. and Chang, Tsan Kuo},
doi = {10.1093/ijpor/edv046},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Chia {\&} Chang (2017).pdf:pdf},
issn = {14716909},
journal = {International Journal of Public Opinion Research},
number = {1},
pages = {23--45},
title = {{Not my horse: Voter preferences, media sources, and hostile poll reports in election campaigns}},
volume = {29},
year = {2017}
}
@unpublished{Neudert2017,
author = {Neudert, Lisa-Maria N.},
pages = {1--31},
title = {{Computational Propaganda in Germany: A Cautionary Tale}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Hameleers,
author = {Hameleers, Michael and van der Meer, Toni G. L. A.},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Hameleers {\&} van den Meer (2019).pdf:pdf},
journal = {Communication Research},
title = {{Misinformation and Polarization in a High-Choice Media Environment: How Effective Are Political Fact-Checkers?}}
}
@article{Oakhill1985,
author = {Oakhill, J. V. and Johnson-Laird, P. N.},
doi = {10.1080/14640748508400919},
journal = {The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology},
keywords = {Beliefs,Experiment,Syllogistic Reasoning},
mendeley-tags = {Beliefs,Experiment,Syllogistic Reasoning},
number = {4},
pages = {553--569},
title = {{The effects of belief on the spontaneous production of syllogistic conclusions}},
volume = {37},
year = {1985}
}
@article{Valloneetal1985,
abstract = {68 pro-Israeli, 27 pro-Arab, and 49 politically neutral undergraduates viewed identical samples of major network TV coverage of the Beirut massacre and rated them as being biased against their side. Results indicate that the hostile media phenomenon appears to involve the operation of 2 separate mechanisms. Ss evaluated the fairness of the media's sample of facts and arguments differently, in light of their own divergent views about the objective merits of each side's case and their corresponding views about the nature of unbiased coverage. Ss also reported different perceptions and recollections about the program content itself; that is, each group reported more negative references to their side than positive ones, and each predicted that the coverage would sway nonpartisans in a hostile direction. Within both partisan groups, furthermore, greater knowledge of the crisis was associated with stronger perceptions of media bias. It is concluded that charges of media bias may reflect more than self-serving attempts to secure preferential treatment. They may result from the operation of basic cognitive and perceptual mechanisms that should prove relevant to perceptions of fairness or objectivity in a wide range of mediation and negotiation contexts. (11 ref)},
author = {Vallone, Robert P. and Ross, Lee and Lepper, Mark R.},
doi = {10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577},
eprint = {arXiv:1011.1669v3},
isbn = {0022-3514 1939-1315},
issn = {00223514},
journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
number = {3},
pages = {577--585},
pmid = {4045697},
title = {{The Hostile Media Phenomenon. Biased Perception and Perceptions of Media Bias in Coverage of the Beirut Massacre}},
volume = {49},
year = {1985}
}
@book{Lazarsfeldetal1944,
address = {New York, NY},
author = {Lazarsfeld, Paul F. and Berelson, Bernard and Gaudet, Hazel},
publisher = {Duell, Sloan and Pearce},
title = {{The People's Choice}},
year = {1944}
}
@article{Berghel2017,
abstract = {Hal Berghel, "Lies, Damn Lies, and Fake News", Computer, vol. 50, no. , pp. 80-85, Feb. 2017, doi:10.1109/MC.2017.56
},
author = {Berghel, Hal},
doi = {10.1109/MC.2017.56},
issn = {00189162},
journal = {Computer},
number = {2},
title = {{Lies, Damn lies, and fake news}},
volume = {50},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Redlawsk2010,
abstract = {In order to update candidate evaluations voters must acquire information and determine whether that new information supports or opposes their candidate expectations. Normatively, new negative information about a preferred candidate should result in a downward adjustment of an existing evaluation. However, recent studies show exactly the opposite; voters become more supportive of a preferred candidate in the face of negatively valenced information. Motivated reasoning is advanced as the explanation, arguing that people are psychologically motivated to maintain and support existing evaluations. Yet it seems unlikely that voters do this ad infinitum. To do so would suggest continued motivated reasoning even in the face of extensive disconfirming information. In this study we consider whether motivated reasoning processes can be overcome simply by continuing to encounter information incongruent with expectations. If so, voters must reach a tipping point after which they begin more accurately updating their evaluations. We show experimental evidence that such an affective tipping point does in fact exist. We also show that as this tipping point is reached, anxiety increases, suggesting that the mechanism that generates the tipping point and leads to more accurate updating may be related to the theory of affective intelligence. The existence of a tipping point suggests that voters are not immune to disconfirming information after all, even when initially acting as motivated reasoners.},
author = {Redlawsk, David P. and Civettini, Andrew J W and Emmerson, Karen M.},
doi = {10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00772.x},
isbn = {1467-9221},
issn = {0162895X},
journal = {Political Psychology},
keywords = {Affective intelligence,Candidate evaluation,Motivated reasoning,Process-tracing,Voting},
number = {4},
pages = {563--593},
pmid = {16417727},
title = {{The Affective Tipping Point: Do Motivated Reasoners Ever "Get It"?}},
volume = {31},
year = {2010}
}
@article{JohnsonScileppi1969,
abstract = {In a 2 2 2 design, 25 male high school students in each of 10 groups received from a high or low credibility source a communication that was either plausible or implausible, and that was given under high- or low-ego-involvement conditions. Results indicated greater attitude change in low-ego-involvement-high-source-credibility conditions than in the other 3 combinations of source credibility and ego involvement. These latter 3 combinations did not differ significantly from each other. Results supported the theory that source credibility is a "set" influencing communication acceptance-rejection primarily under low-ego-involvement conditions. Extension of the theory to social conformity experiments is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)},
author = {Johnson, Homer H. and Scileppi, John A.},
doi = {10.1037/h0027992},
isbn = {0022-3514},
issn = {0022-3514},
journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
number = {1},
pages = {31--36},
pmid = {5352373},
title = {{Effects of Ego-Involvement Conditions on Attitude Change to High and Low Credibility Communicators}},
volume = {13},
year = {1969}
}
@article{GarrettWeeks2017,
author = {Garrett, R Kelly and Weeks, Brian E.},
doi = {10.7910/DVN/CRUW0P},
isbn = {1111111111},
issn = {1932-6203},
pages = {1--17},
title = {{Epistemic beliefs' role in promoting misperceptions and conspiracist ideation}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{SlomanRabb2019,
abstract = {Recent political events around the world, including the apparently sudden rise of populism and decline of democratic zeal, have surprised many of us and offered a window onto how people form beliefs and attitudes about the wider world. Cognitive scientists have tended to view belief and attitude formation from one of three perspectives: as a process of deliberative reasoning, as a gut reaction modulated by feelings, or as a cultural phenomenon grounded in partisan relationships. This special issue on the cognitive science of political thought brings a variety of voices to bear on the issue. The upshot is that each perspective captures part of the dynamics of opinion change, but the underlying processes operate in an integrated way. Individuals' affective reactions are conditioned by the social world, and therefore reflect their community norms. They often precede processes of reasoning, but not always. In turn, reasoning is generally motivated in the service of transmitting beliefs acquired from citizens' communities of belief. Cognition is largely a filter for attending to and sharing community norms.},
author = {Sloman, Steven A. and Rabb, Nathaniel},
doi = {10.1016/j.cognition.2019.02.014},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Sloman {\&} Rabb (2019).pdf:pdf},
issn = {18737838},
journal = {Cognition},
keywords = {Attitude formation,Belief formation,Political psychology},
publisher = {Elsevier},
title = {{Thought as a determinant of political opinion}},
year = {2019}
}
@article{Redlawsk2002,
abstract = {Researchers attempting to understand how citizens process political information have advanced motivated reasoning to explain the joint role of affect and cognition. The prominence of affect suggests that all social information processing is affectively charged and prone to biases. This article makes use of a unique data set collected using a dynamic information board experiment to test important effects of motivated reasoning. In particular, affective biases should cause citizens to take longer processing information incongruent with their existing affect and such biases should also direct search for new information about candidates. Somewhat perversely, motivated reasoners may actually increase their support of a positively evaluated candidate upon learning new negatively evaluated information. Findings are reported that support all of these expectations. Additional analysis shows that these affective biases may easily lead to lower quality decision making, leading to a direct challenge to the notion of voters as rational Bayesian updaters.},
author = {Redlawsk, David P.},
doi = {10.1111/1468-2508.00161},
isbn = {0022-3816},
issn = {0022-3816},
journal = {The Journal of Politics},
number = {4},
pages = {1021--1044},
title = {{Hot Cognition or Cool Consideration? Testing the Effects of Motivated Reasoning on Political Decision Making}},
volume = {64},
year = {2002}
}
@misc{Gallup2016,
address = {Washington, D.C.},
author = {Swift, Art},
booktitle = {Gallup},
title = {{Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low}},
url = {https://news.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx},
urldate = {2018-09-30},
year = {2016}
}
@misc{Schmehl2017,
author = {Schmehl, Karsten},
booktitle = {Buzzfeed},
month = {jul},
title = {{7 der 10 erfolgreichsten Artikel {\"{u}}ber Angela Merkel auf Facebook sind Fake News}},
url = {https://www.buzzfeed.com/karstenschmehl/die-top-fake-news-ueber-angela-merkel?utm{\_}term=.drPqq3Qp7r{\#}.wqQ33M0nLy},
year = {2017}
}
@book{Bennett2016,
address = {Chicago},
author = {Bennett, W. Lance},
editor = {10th},
publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
title = {{News: The Politics of Illusion}},
year = {2016}
}
@article{Barberaetal2015b,
abstract = {We estimated ideological preferences of 3.8 million Twitter users and, using a data set of nearly 150 million tweets concerning 12 political and nonpolitical issues, explored whether online communication resembles an “echo chamber” (as a result of selective exposure and ideological segregation) or a “national conversation.” We observed that information was exchanged primarily among individuals with similar ideological preferences in the case of political issues (e.g., 2012 presidential election, 2013 government shutdown) but not many other current events (e.g., 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, 2014 Super Bowl). Discussion of the Newtown shootings in 2012 reflected a dynamic process, beginning as a national conversation before transforming into a polarized exchange. With respect to both political and nonpolitical issues, liberals were more likely than conservatives to engage in cross-ideological dissemination; this is an important asymmetry with respect to the structure of communication that is consistent with psychological theory and research bearing on ideological differences in epistemic, existential, and relational motivation. Overall, we conclude that previous work may have overestimated the degree of ideological segregation in social-media usage.},
author = {Barber{\'{a}}, Pablo and Jost, John T. and Nagler, Jonathan and Tucker, Joshua A. and Bonneau, Richard},
doi = {10.1177/0956797615594620},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Barberaetal2015.pdf:pdf},
issn = {14679280},
journal = {Psychological Science},
keywords = {open data,open materials,polarization,political ideology,social media},
number = {10},
pages = {1531--1542},
pmid = {26297377},
title = {{Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber?}},
volume = {26},
year = {2015}
}
@article{Berinsky2017a,
abstract = {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.},
author = {Berinsky, Adam J.},
doi = {10.1017/S0007123415000186},
issn = {0007-1234},
journal = {British Journal of Political Science},
number = {2},
pages = {241--262},
title = {{Rumors and Health Care Reform: Experiments in Political Misinformation}},
volume = {47},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Tsfati2010,
abstract = {Based on the premise that online journalism offers readers with some features that may serve as an alternative to traditional journalism, this article explores possible associations between mistrust in mainstream news media and consumption of online news. Results from a telephone survey and an online survey demonstrate that the association between mistrust of mainstream news and exposure to online news in general is negative. But whereas mainstream exposure is related to trust in media, exposure to nonmainstream sites is related to media skepticism. The findings also shed some light on the factors contributing to audience trust in online news.},
author = {Tsfati, Yariv},
doi = {10.1177/0002764210376309},
isbn = {0002764210},
issn = {0002-7642},
journal = {American Behavioral Scientist},
keywords = {2001,Media trust,Source credibility,audience trust in the,cappella,countries,fading in many developed,flickinger,in recent years,institutions of the mainstream,media has been,media skepticism,online news exposure,see bennet,selective exposure,staci,trust-in-media},
mendeley-tags = {Media trust,Source credibility},
number = {1},
pages = {22--42},
title = {{Online News Exposure and Trust in the Mainstream Media: Exploring Possible Associations}},
volume = {54},
year = {2010}
}
@article{Sternthaletal1978,
abstract = {Two experiments are reported identifying the circumstances in which high credibility either facilitates, inhibits, or has no effect on the communicator's persuasiveness in relation to a less credible source. These data provide support for the cognitive response view of information processing and suggest the importance of message recipient's initial opinion as a determinant of persuasion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]},
author = {Sternthal, Brian and Dholakia, Ruby and Leavitt, Clark},
doi = {10.1086/208704},
isbn = {00935301},
issn = {0093-5301},
journal = {Journal of Consumer Research},
pages = {252--260},
pmid = {10297222},
title = {{The Persuasive Effect of Source Credibility: Tests of Cognitive Response}},
volume = {4},
year = {1978}
}
@article{Kruikemeieretal2018,
author = {Kruikemeier, Sanne and Lecheler, Sophie and Boyer, Ming M.},
doi = {10.1080/10584609.2017.1388310},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Downloads/Kruikemeier et al. (2018).pdf:pdf},
journal = {Political Communication},
number = {1},
pages = {75--96},
title = {{Learning From News on Different Media Platforms: An Eye-Tracking Experiment}},
volume = {35},
year = {2018}
}
@article{Stroud2008,
abstract = {Today, people have ample opportunity to engage in selective exposure, the selection of information matching their beliefs. Whether this is occurring, however, is a matter of debate. While some worry that people increasingly are seeking out likeminded views, others propose that newer media provide an increased opportunity for exposure to diverse views. In returning to the concept of selective exposure, this article argues that certain topics, such as politics, are more likely to inspire selective exposure and that research should investigate habitual media exposure patterns, as opposed to single exposure decisions. This study investigates whether different media types (newspapers, political talk radio, cable news, and Internet) are more likely to inspire selective exposure. Using data from the 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey, evidence supports the idea that people's political beliefs are related to their media exposure-a pattern that persists across media types. Over-time analyses suggest that people's political beliefs motivate their media use patterns and that cable news audiences became increasingly politically divided over the course of the 2004 election. {\textcopyright} 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.},
author = {Stroud, Natalie Jomini},
doi = {10.1007/s11109-007-9050-9},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Stroud (2008).pdf:pdf},
issn = {01909320},
journal = {Political Behavior},
keywords = {2004 election,Media,Partisanship,Political ideology,Presidential politics,Selective exposure},
number = {3},
pages = {341--366},
title = {{Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure}},
volume = {30},
year = {2008}
}
@article{Zolloetal2015,
abstract = {According to the World Economic Forum, the diffusion of unsubstantiated rumors on online social media is one of the main threats for our society. The disintermediated paradigm of content production and consumption on online social media might foster the formation of homogeneous communities (echo-chambers) around specific worldviews. Such a scenario has been shown to be a vivid environment for the diffusion of false claim. Not rarely, viral phenomena trigger naive (and funny) social responses-e.g., the recent case of Jade Helm 15 where a simple military exercise turned out to be perceived as the beginning of the civil war in the US. In this work, we address the emotional dynamics of collective debates around distinct kinds of information-i.e., science and conspiracy news-and inside and across their respective polarized communities. We find that for both kinds of content the longer the discussion the more the negativity of the sentiment. We show that comments on conspiracy posts tend to be more negative than on science posts. However, the more the engagement of users, the more they tend to negative commenting (both on science and conspiracy). Finally, zooming in at the interaction among polarized communities, we find a general negative pattern. As the number of comments increases-i.e., the discussion becomes longer-the sentiment of the post is more and more negative.},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
arxivId = {arXiv:1505.08001v1},
author = {Zollo, Fabiana and Novak, Petra Kralj and {Del Vicario}, Michela and Bessi, Alessandro and Mozeti{\v{c}}, Igor and Scala, Antonio and Caldarelli, Guido and Quattrociocchi, Walter and Preis, Tobias},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0138740},
eprint = {arXiv:1505.08001v1},
isbn = {10.1371/journal.pone.0138740},
issn = {19326203},
journal = {PLoS ONE},
keywords = {API,Facebook,Fake News,Misinformation,Observational,Sentiment analysis},
mendeley-tags = {API,Facebook,Fake News,Misinformation,Observational,Sentiment analysis},
number = {9},
pages = {1--22},
pmid = {26422473},
title = {{Emotional dynamics in the age of misinformation}},
volume = {10},
year = {2015}
}
@article{Unkelbach2017,
abstract = {People are more likely to judge repeated statements as true compared to new statements, a phenomenon known as the illusory truth effect. The currently dominant explanation is an increase in processing fluency caused by prior presentation. We present a new theory to explain this effect. We assume that people judge truth based on coherent references for statements in memory. Due to prior presentation, repeated statements have more coherently linked references; thus, a repetition-induced truth effect follows. Five experiments test this theory. Experiment 1–3 show that both the amount and the coherence of references for a repeated statement influence judged truth. Experiment 4 shows that people also judge new statements more likely “true” when they share references with previously presented statements. Experiment 5 realizes theoretically predicted conditions under which repetition should not influence judged truth. Based on these data, we discuss how the theory relates to other explanations of repetition-induced truth and how it may integrate other truth-related phenomena and belief biases.},
author = {Unkelbach, Christian and Rom, Sarah C.},
doi = {10.1016/j.cognition.2016.12.016},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/UnkelbachRom2017.pdf:pdf},
issn = {18737838},
journal = {Cognition},
keywords = {Familiarity,Fluency,Illusory truth effect,Referential theory},
pages = {110--126},
publisher = {Elsevier B.V.},
title = {{A referential theory of the repetition-induced truth effect}},
volume = {160},
year = {2017}
}
@article{EaglyChaiken1975,
abstract = {This study tested the attribution hypothesis that message persuasiveness de- creases to the extent that the position the communicator advocates is expected on the basis of a characteristic he possesses. Some subjects read a message by an attractive or unattractive communicator who espoused a desirable or un- desirable position on one of two topics, while others, without reading the message, estimated the likelihood that the communicator would advocate each position. On expectancies, undesirable positions were judged more likely than desirable ones, and a Source Attractiveness X Position Desirability interaction showed attractive-desirable and unattractive-undesirable communicator-posi- tion pairings judged likelier than attractive-undesirable and unattractive-de- sirable pairings. On opinions, main effects showed attractive communicators more persuasive than unattractive communicators and desirable positions more persuasive than undesirable positions. However, a Source Attractiveness X Position Desirability interaction indicated that attractive communicators were more persuasive than unattractive ones given undesirable positions but only equally persuasive given desirable positions. The attractiveness main effect on opinions was interpreted in terms of communicator likability, while the paral- lelism between expectancies and opinions (and other responses) with regard to the other effects supported the attribution interpretation. Choice or no choice about receiving a message had only a marginal effect on opinion change.},
author = {Eagly, Alice H. and Chaiken, Shelly},
doi = {10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01403.x},
isbn = {0146167201},
issn = {0022-3514},
journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
number = {1},
pages = {136--144},
pmid = {10751980},
title = {{An attribution analysis of the effect of communicator characteristics on opinion change: The case of communicator attractiveness}},
volume = {32},
year = {1975}
}
@article{Lazeretal2018,
abstract = {Plasma and ovarian levels of the dimeric forms of inhibin and plasma estradiol-17beta were investigated and compared with changes in plasma gonadotropins from Postnatal Day (PND) 5 to PND 30 in the female rat. The inhibin subunit proteins were localized in follicular granulosa cells of the ovary. Plasma immunoreactive inhibin levels were low until PND 15 and increased thereafter. Plasma levels of inhibin B (alpha and beta(B) subunits) remained very low until PND 15 and then increased by approximately 24-fold. In contrast, plasma levels of inhibin A (alpha and beta(A) subunits) were relatively low and steady until PND 20, then increased by approximately 3-fold at PND 25. Changes in ovarian inhibin A and B levels closely resembled those in plasma levels. Plasma FSH levels were low at PND 10 but started to peak from PND 15 and remained high until PND 20, followed by a remarkable reduction at PNDs 25 and 30. This dramatic fall in FSH coincided with the rise of inhibin A. A significant inverse correlation was observed between plasma FSH and plasma inhibin A (r = -0.67, P {\textless} 0.0002), ovarian inhibin A (r = -0.48, P {\textless} 0.01), plasma inhibin B (r = -0.48, P {\textless} 0.05), and ovarian inhibin B (r = -0.54, P {\textless} 0.01). Plasma estradiol-17beta levels were elevated from PND 5 through PND 15, then fell sharply through PND 30. Plasma estradiol-17beta was significantly and positively (r = 0.75, P {\textless} 0.0002) correlated with plasma FSH. Plasma LH rose to higher levels at PND 15 and tended to be lower thereafter. The inhibin alpha, beta(A), and beta(B) subunits were localized to primary, secondary, and antral and large antral follicles, but the types of these immunopositive follicles varied with age. It appeared that, at PND 25 and afterward, all three subunits were mainly confined to large antral follicles in the ovary. We conclude that estradiol-17beta likely is the major candidate in stimulation of FSH secretion in the infantile female rat. We also conclude that inhibin regulation of pituitary FSH secretion through its negative feedback in the infantile female rat begins to operate after PND 20. We suggest that this negative feedback is achieved by increases in plasma levels of the two dimeric forms, and that inhibin A appears to be the major physiological regulator of FSH secretion at the initiation of this mechanism. We also conclude that large antral follicles in the ovary are the primary source of these bioactive inhibins that are secreted in large amounts into the circulation after PND 20.},
author = {Lazer, David M. J. and Baum, Matthew A. and Benkler, Yochai and Berinsky, Adam J. and Greenhill, Kelly M. and Menczer, Filippo and Metzger, Miriam J. and Nyhan, Brendan and Pennycook, Gordon and Rothschild, David and Schudson, Michael and Sloman, Steven A. and Sunstein, Cass R. and Thorson, Emily A. and Watts, Duncan J. and Zittrain, Jonathan L.},
doi = {10.1126/science.aao2998},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Lazer et al. (2018).pdf:pdf},
isbn = {0006-3363 (Print)$\backslash$r0006-3363 (Linking)},
issn = {0036-8075},
journal = {Science},
number = {6380},
pages = {1094--1096},
pmid = {11717121},
title = {{The science of fake news}},
volume = {359},
year = {2018}
}
@article{MillerKrosnick2000,
author = {Miller, Joanne M and Krosnick, Jon A},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Miller {\&} Krosnick (2000).pdf:pdf},
journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
number = {2},
pages = {301--315},
title = {{News Media Impact on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Politically Knowledgeable Citizens Are Guided by a Trusted Source}},
volume = {44},
year = {2000}
}
@article{AdamicGlance2005,
author = {Adamic, Lada and Glance, Natalie},
journal = {Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on link discovery},
pages = {1--16},
title = {{The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: Divided They Blog}},
year = {2005}
}
@unpublished{Pennycooketal2019b,
author = {Pennycook, Gordon and Epstein, Ziv and Mosleh, Mohsen and Arechar, Antonio A. and Eckles, Dean and Rand, David G.},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Pennycooketal2019b.pdf:pdf},
title = {{Understanding and reducing the spread of misinformation online}},
year = {2019}
}
@article{Chaiken1980,
abstract = {In Experiment 1, subjects read a persuasive message from a likable or unlikable communicator who presented six or two arguments concerning one of two topics. High response involvement subjects anticipated discussing the message topic at a future experimental session, whereas low involvement subjects anticipated dis-cussing a different topic. For high involvement subjects, opinion change was significantly greater given six arguments but was unaffected by communicator likability. For low involvement subjects, opinion change was significantly greater given a likable communicator but was unaffected by the arguments manipulation. In Experiment 2, high issue involvement subjects showed slightly greater opinion change when exposed to five arguments from an unlikable (vs. one argument from a likable) communicator, whereas low involvement subjects exhibited sig-nificantly greater persuasion in response to one argument from a likable (vs. five arguments from an unlikable) communicator. These findings support the idea that high involvement leads message recipients to employ a systematic informa-tion processing strategy in which message-based cognitions mediate persuasion, whereas low involvement leads recipients to use a heuristic processing strategy in which simple decision rules mediate persuasion. Support was also obtained for the hypothesis that content-mediated (vs. source-mediated) opinion change would shower greater persistence. This research distinguishes between a sys-According to a systematic view, recipients tematic and a heuristic view of persuasion, exert considerable cognitive effort in perform-Both conceptualizations regard message re-ing this task: They actively attempt to com-cipients as concerned with assessing the prehend and evaluate the message's arguments validity of the message's overall conclusion, as well as to assess their validity in relation to the message's conclusion. In contrast, ac-cording to a heuristic view of persuasion, re-This article is based on a dissertation submitted cipients exert comparatively little effort in in partial fulfillment of the doctoral requirements judging message validity: Rather than pro-at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. The cessing argumentation, recipients may rely author is grateful to Alice H. Eagly and Icek Ajzen Qn (typlcally) more access ible information for their counsel and to},
author = {Chaiken, Shelly},
doi = {10.1037//0022-3514.39.5.752},
isbn = {0022-3514, 0022-3514},
issn = {00223514},
journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
keywords = {communicator likeability {\&},number of arguments, heuristic vs systematic infor,perceived consequences {\&},position advocated {\&},topic {\&}},
number = {5},
pages = {752--766},
pmid = {10751980},
title = {{Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion}},
volume = {39},
year = {1980}
}
@techreport{IfP2018,
address = {Mainz},
author = {{Institut f{\"{u}}r Publizistik}},
institution = {Institut für Publizistik (Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz)},
title = {{Medienvertrauen in Deutschland 2017}},
url = {http://www.uni-mainz.de/presse/aktuell/Dateien/02{\_}publizistik{\_}medienvertrauen{\_}{\_}2017{\_}grafiken.pdf},
year = {2018}
}
@article{Eadyetal2019,
abstract = {A major point of debate in the study of the Internet and politics is the extent to which social media platforms encourage citizens to inhabit online “bubbles” or “echo chambers,” exposed primarily to ideologically congenial political information. To investigate this question, we link a representative survey of Americans with data from respondents' public Twitter accounts (N = 1,496). We then quantify the ideological distributions of users' online political and media environments by merging validated estimates of user ideology with the full set of accounts followed by our survey respondents (N = 642,345) and the available tweets posted by those accounts (N {\~{}} 1.2 billion). We study the extent to which liberals and conservatives encounter counter-attitudinal messages in two distinct ways: (a) by the accounts they follow and (b) by the tweets they receive from those accounts, either directly or indirectly (via retweets). More than a third of respondents do not follow any media sources, but among those who do, we find a substantial amount of overlap (51{\%}) in the ideological distributions of accounts followed by users on opposite ends of the political spectrum. At the same time, however, we find asymmetries in individuals' willingness to venture into cross-cutting spaces, with conservatives more likely to follow media and political accounts classified as left-leaning than the reverse. Finally, we argue that such choices are likely tempered by online news watching behavior.},
author = {Eady, Gregory and Nagler, Jonathan and Guess, Andy and Zilinsky, Jan and Tucker, Joshua A},
doi = {10.1177/2158244019832705},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Eadyetal2019.pdf:pdf},
issn = {21582440},
journal = {SAGE Open},
keywords = {communication,communication technologies,mass communication,media {\&} society,media consumption,new media,political behavior,political communication,political science,social sciences},
number = {1},
title = {{How Many People Live in Political Bubbles on Social Media? Evidence From Linked Survey and Twitter Data}},
volume = {9},
year = {2019}
}
@article{Kahan2017a,
abstract = {This commentary uses the dynamic of identity-protective cognition to pose a friendly challenge to Jussim (2012). Like other forms of information processing, this one is too readily characterized as a bias. It is no mistake, however, to view identity-protective cognition as generating inaccurate perceptions. The “bounded rationality” paradigm incorrectly equates rationality with forming accurate beliefs. But so does Jussim's critique.},
author = {Kahan, Dan M.},
doi = {10.1017/s0140525x15002332},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Kahan (2012).pdf:pdf},
issn = {0140-525X},
journal = {Behavioral and Brain Sciences},
title = {{The expressive rationality of inaccurate perceptions}},
volume = {40},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Schwarz2007,
abstract = {This chapter draws attention to the role of metacognitive experiences in judgment and decision making and explores their implications for debiasing strategies and public information campaigns. It is organized as follows. The first section introduces key metacognitive experiences and summarizes their principles of operation. The second section addresses a core assumption of most debiasing techniques: If people only thought enough about the right inputs, they would arrive at a less biased judgment. We identify the conditions under which this assumption holds as well as the conditions under which this strategy backfires. The third section addresses public information campaigns and illuminates why attempts to discredit erroneous beliefs often achieve the opposite. Throughout, we identify open issues for future research and the chapter concludes with a discussion of theoretical and applied implications.},
author = {Schwarz, Norbert and Sanna, Lawrence J. and Skurnik, Ian and Yoon, Carolyn},
doi = {10.1016/S0065-2601(06)39003-X},
isbn = {0120152398},
issn = {00652601},
journal = {Advances in Experimental Social Psychology},
number = {06},
pages = {127--161},
title = {{Metacognitive Experiences and the Intricacies of Setting People Straight: Implications for Debiasing and Public Information Campaigns}},
volume = {39},
year = {2007}
}
@article{Carretal2014,
author = {Carr, D. Jasun and Barnidge, Matthew and Lee, Byung Gu and Tsang, Stephanie Jean},
doi = {10.1177/1077699014538828},
journal = {Journalism {\&} Mass Communication Quarterly},
keywords = {S,and sites devoted to,citizen journalism,e,g,logging services,media credibility,media skepticism,microb-,political cynicism,technologies such as blogs,twitter and vine,user-generated video,with the advent of,wordpress and tumblr},
mendeley-tags = {S},
number = {3},
title = {{Cynics and Skeptics: Evaluating the Credibility of Mainstream and Citizen Journalism}},
volume = {9},
year = {2014}
}
@article{Stroembaecketal2020,
abstract = {In contemporary high-choice media environments, the issue of media trust and its impact on people's media use has taken on new importance. At the same time, the extent to which people trust the news media and how much it matters for their use of different types of media is not clear. To lay the groundwork for future research, in this article we offer a focused review of (a) how news media trust has been conceptualized and operationalized in previous research and (b) research on the extent to which news media trust influences media use, and (c) offer a theoretically derived framework for future research on news media trust and its influence on media use.},
author = {Str{\"{o}}mb{\"{a}}ck, Jesper and Tsfati, Yariv and Boomgaarden, Hajo and Damstra, Alyt and Lindgren, Elina and Vliegenthart, Rens and Lindholm, Torun},
doi = {10.1080/23808985.2020.1755338},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Str{\"{o}}mb{\"{a}}cketal2020.pdf:pdf},
issn = {2380-8985},
journal = {Annals of the International Communication Association},
keywords = {News media trust,conceptualizations,measurements,methodology,news media use,selective exposure},
number = {0},
pages = {1--18},
publisher = {Taylor {\&} Francis},
title = {{News media trust and its impact on media use: toward a framework for future research}},
volume = {0},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Woon2017,
abstract = {Does the mass public have the ability to judge when politicians lie to them? Can citizens accurately judge the veracity of what politicians say, discerning true from false statements? In short, does the truth matter? I elicit truth perceptions in a novel statement rating task, asking respondents to judge the veracity of real statements from politicians, and I experimentally investigate how the availability of source cues a↵ect these perceptions. Comparing perceptions to the evaluations of an independent, fact-checking organization, I find that perceptions track the truth. While source cues increase polarization, they do not substantially diminish this relationship, except in the case of highly polarizing speakers. Overall, the results suggest that political lie detection is possible through the aggregation of individual perceptions, even in the face of formidable partisan forces.},
author = {Woon, Jonathan},
title = {{Political Lie Detection}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Kahanetal2010,
author = {Kahan, Dan M. and Braman, Donald and Cohen, Geoffrey L. and Gastil, John and Slovic, Paul},
doi = {10.1007/s 10979-009-920 1-0},
journal = {Law and Human Behaviour},
number = {6},
pages = {501--516},
title = {{Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study of the Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition}},
volume = {34},
year = {2010}
}
@inproceedings{Conoveretal2011,
author = {Conover, M. D. and Ratkiewicz, J and Francisco, M and Goncalves, B and Flammini, A and Menczer, F},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media Political},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Conover et al. - 2011 - Political Polarization on Twitter.pdf:pdf},
pages = {89--96},
title = {{Political Polarization on Twitter}},
year = {2011}
}
@article{Gainesetal2007,
author = {Gaines, Brian J and Kuklinski, James H and Quirk, Paul J and Peyton, Buddy},
doi = {10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00601.x},
journal = {The Journal of Politics},
keywords = {Beliefs,Motivated reasoning,Opinions,Panel survey},
mendeley-tags = {Beliefs,Motivated reasoning,Opinions,Panel survey},
number = {4},
pages = {957--974},
title = {{Same Facts, Different Interpretations: Partisan Motivation and Opinion on Iraq}},
volume = {69},
year = {2007}
}
@article{Bartels2002,
author = {Bartels, Larry M.},
journal = {Political Behavior},
number = {2},
pages = {117--150},
title = {{Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions}},
volume = {24},
year = {2002}
}
@article{HovlandWeiss1951,
author = {Hovland, Carl Iver and Weiss, Walter},
doi = {10.1086/266350},
journal = {The Public Opinion Quarterly},
number = {4},
pages = {635--650},
title = {{The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness}},
volume = {15},
year = {1951}
}
@book{Zaller1992,
address = {Cambridge},
author = {Zaller, John},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Zaller - 1992 - The nature and origins of mass opinion.docx:docx},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
title = {{The nature and origins of mass opinion}},
year = {1992}
}
@article{Sunsteinetal2017,
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
arxivId = {arXiv:1011.1669v3},
author = {Sunstein, Cass and Bobadilla-Suarez, Sebastian and Lazzaro, Stephanie and Sharot, Tali},
doi = {10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004},
eprint = {arXiv:1011.1669v3},
isbn = {9788578110796},
issn = {1098-6596},
journal = {Cornell Law Review},
pages = {1431--1444},
pmid = {25246403},
title = {{How people update beliefs about climage change}},
volume = {102},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Jones2019,
abstract = {A long line of research shows that voters frequently evaluate objective conditions through a perceptual screen, seeing a stronger economy and more peaceful world when their party is in power. We know less about how and why these partisan perceptual differences have changed over recent history, however. This paper combines ANES measures of retrospective evaluations from 1956 to 2016 and shows that partisan differences (1) have increased significantly over the past few decades across all types of assessments; (2) are greatest, and have changed the most, amongst the most politically aware; and (3) closely track changes in elite polarization over this time period. The extent of partisan disagreement in retrospective evaluations is thus not constant, but rather contingent on attributes of the voter and the political context. Greater political awareness and more polarized politicians result in larger partisan perceptual differences, as the most engaged citizens are the most likely to receive and internalize cues about the state of the world from their party's elites.},
author = {Jones, Philip Edward},
doi = {10.1007/s11109-019-09543-y},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Jones (2019).pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1110901909},
issn = {01909320},
journal = {Political Behavior},
keywords = {Partisanship,Political awareness,Retrospective evaluations},
publisher = {Springer US},
title = {{Partisanship, Political Awareness, and Retrospective Evaluations, 1956–2016}},
year = {2019}
}
@unpublished{EckerAng2017,
author = {Ecker, Ullrich K. H. and Ang, Li Chang},
doi = {10.17605/OSF.IO/48TCP},
title = {{Political Attitudes and the Processing of Misinformation Corrections}},
volume = {742},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Kahanetal2012,
author = {Kahan, Dan M. and Peters, Ellen and Wittlin, Maggie and Slovic, Paul and Ouellette, Lisa Larrimore and Braman, Donald and Mandel, Gregory},
doi = {10.1038/nclimate1547},
issn = {1758-678X},
journal = {Nature Climate Change},
keywords = {Identity protection,Misbeliefs,Motivated reasoning,Polarization},
mendeley-tags = {Identity protection,Misbeliefs,Motivated reasoning,Polarization},
month = {oct},
pages = {732--735},
publisher = {Nature Publishing Group},
title = {{The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks}},
volume = {2},
year = {2012}
}
@article{Dekeersmaecker2017,
abstract = {The present experiment (N = 390) examined how people adjust their judgment after they learn that crucial information on which their initial evaluation was based is incorrect. In line with our expectations, the results showed that people generally do adjust their attitudes, but the degree to which they correct their assessment depends on their cognitive ability. In particular, individuals with lower levels of cognitive ability adjusted their attitudes to a lesser extent than individuals with higher levels of cognitive ability. Moreover, for those with lower levels of cognitive ability, even after the explicit disconfirmation of the false information, adjusted attitudes remained biased and significantly different from the attitudes of the control group who was never exposed to the incorrect information. In contrast, the adjusted attitudes of those with higher levels of cognitive ability were similar to those of the control group. Controlling for need for closure and right-wing authoritarianism did not influence the relationship between cognitive ability and attitude adjustment. The present results indicate that, even in optimal circumstances, the initial influence of incorrect information cannot simply be undone by pointing out that this information was incorrect, especially in people with relatively lower cognitive ability.},
author = {De keersmaecker, Jonas and Roets, Arne},
doi = {10.1016/j.intell.2017.10.005},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/DeKeersmaeckerRoets2017.pdf:pdf},
issn = {01602896},
journal = {Intelligence},
keywords = {Attitude change,Cognitive ability,Cognitive bias,Fake news,Human judgment,Intelligence},
number = {November},
pages = {107--110},
publisher = {Elsevier},
title = {{‘Fake news': Incorrect, but hard to correct. The role of cognitive ability on the impact of false information on social impressions}},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.10.005},
volume = {65},
year = {2017}
}
@article{PennycookRand2019b,
abstract = {Inaccurate beliefs pose a threat to democracy and fake news represents a particularly egregious and direct avenue by which inaccurate beliefs have been propagated via social media. Here we investigate the cognitive psychological profile of individuals who fall prey to fake news. We find a consistent positive correlation between the propensity to think analytically – as measured by the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) – and the ability to differentiate fake news from real news (“media truth discernment”). This was true regardless of whether the article's source was indicated (which, surprisingly, also had no main effect on accuracy judgments). Contrary to the motivated reasoning account, CRT was just as positively correlated with media truth discernment, if not more so, for headlines that aligned with individuals' political ideology. The link between analytic thinking and media truth discernment was driven both by a negative correlation between CRT and perceptions of fake news accuracy (particularly among Hillary Clinton supporters), and a positive correlation between CRT and perceptions of real news accuracy (particularly among Donald Trump supporters). This suggests that factors that undermine the legitimacy of traditional news media may exacerbate the problem of inaccurate political beliefs among Trump supporters, who engaged in less analytic thinking and were overall less able to discern fake from real news (regardless of the news' political valence). We also found consistent evidence that pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity negatively correlates with perceptions of fake news accuracy; a correlation that is mediated by analytic thinking. Finally, analytic thinking was associated with an unwillingness to share both fake and real news on social media. Our results indicate that the propensity to think analytically plays an important role in the recognition of misinformation, regardless of political valence – a finding that opens up potential avenues for fighting fake news.},
author = {Pennycook, Gordon and Rand, David G.},
journal = {Journal of Personality},
keywords = {analytic thinking,cognitive reflection test,dual process theory,fake news,intuition,news media,social media},
pages = {1--16},
title = {{Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking}},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract{\_}id=3023545},
year = {2019}
}
@unpublished{Ribeiro2017,
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
arxivId = {arXiv:1706.05924v1},
author = {Ribeiro, Manoel Horta and Calais, Pedro H and Almeida, A F and Jr, Wagner Meira},
doi = {10.475/123},
eprint = {arXiv:1706.05924v1},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Ribeiro et al. - 2017 - ”Everything I Disagree With is {\#} FakeNews ” Correlating Political Polarization and Spread of Misinformation.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1234567245},
keywords = {acm reference format,calais,fake news,lter bubbles,manoel horta ribeiro,misinformation,opinion polarization,pedro h,virg},
title = {{”Everything I Disagree With is {\#} FakeNews ”: Correlating Political Polarization and Spread of Misinformation}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Jostetal2003,
abstract = {Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r = .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (-.32); uncertainty tolerance (-.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (-.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (-.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.},
author = {Jost, John T. and Glaser, Jack and Kruglanski, Arie W. and Sulloway, Frank J.},
doi = {10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339},
isbn = {0033-2909$\backslash$r1939-1455},
issn = {1939-1455},
journal = {Psychological Bulletin},
keywords = {conservatism,liberalism,motivated cognition,motivated reasoning,social cognition},
mendeley-tags = {conservatism,liberalism,motivated cognition,motivated reasoning,social cognition},
number = {3},
pages = {339--375},
pmid = {12784934},
title = {{Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.}},
url = {http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339},
volume = {129},
year = {2003}
}
@incollection{Swire2017,
author = {Swire, Briony and Ecker, Ullrich},
booktitle = {Misinformation and Mass},
editor = {Southwell, B. and Thorson, E. A. and Sheble, L.},
pages = {1--25},
title = {{Misinformation and its Correction: Cognitive Mechanisms and Recommendations for Mass Communication}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Samuel-Azran2019,
abstract = {{\textless}p{\textgreater}In this paper, we wish to examine the perceived credibility of news items shared through Social Networking Sites (SNS) – specifically, as a function of tie strength and perceived credibility of the media source from which the content originated. We utilized a between-subjects design. The Facebook account of each participant (N=217) was analyzed. Based on this analysis, our participants were shown a fictitious Facebook post that was presumably shared by one of their Facebook friends with whom they had either a strong social tie (experiment group), or a weak social tie (control group). All recipients were then asked about their perceptions regarding the news source (from which the item presumably originated), and their perception regarding the credibility of the presented item. Our findings indicate that the strength of the social tie between the sharer of the item and its recipient mediates the effect of the credibility perception regarding the news source, and the perceived item credibility, as well as the likelihood of searching for additional information regarding the topic presented in the shared item.{\textless}/p{\textgreater}},
author = {Samuel-Azran, Tal and Hayat, Tsahi},
doi = {10.3916/C60-2019-07},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Samuel-Azran {\&} Hayat (2019).pdf:pdf},
issn = {1134-3478},
journal = {Comunicar},
keywords = {Credibility, social networking sites, social netwo},
number = {60},
title = {{Online news recommendations credibility: The tie is mightier than the source}},
url = {https://www.revistacomunicar.com/index.php?contenido=preimpreso{\&}doi=10.3916/C60-2019-07},
volume = {27},
year = {2019}
}
@techreport{ARDInfratest2017a,
author = {{ARD/Infratest Dimap}},
institution = {ARD/Infratest Dimap},
title = {{ARD DeutschlandTREND Januar 2017}},
url = {https://www.infratest-dimap.de/fileadmin/user{\_}upload/dt1701{\_}bericht.pdf},
year = {2017}
}
@unpublished{Barbera2018,
author = {Barber{\'{a}}, Pablo},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Barbera (2018).pdf:pdf},
pages = {1--5},
title = {{Explaining the Spread of Misinformation on Social Media: Evidence from the 2016 U . S . Presidential Election. Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U . S . Presidential Election Campaign}},
year = {2018}
}
@book{Althaus2003,
address = {Cambridge},
author = {Althaus, Scott L.},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
title = {{Collective preferences in democratic politics: Opinion surveys and the will of the people}},
year = {2003}
}
@article{Pennycooketal2018,
author = {Pennycook, Gordon and Cannon, Tyrone D. and Rand, David G.},
journal = {Journal of Experimental Psychology: General},
number = {12},
pages = {1865--1880},
title = {{Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news}},
volume = {147},
year = {2018}
}
@article{Greer2003,
author = {Greer, Jennifer D.},
doi = {10.1207/S15327825MCS0601},
journal = {Mass Communication and Society},
keywords = {Advertising,Experiment,Source credibility},
mendeley-tags = {Advertising,Experiment,Source credibility},
number = {1},
pages = {11--28},
title = {{Evaluating the Credibility of Online Information: A Test of Source and Advertising Influence}},
volume = {6},
year = {2003}
}
@article{KohringMatthes2007,
author = {Kohring, Matthias and Matthes, J{\"{o}}rg},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Kohring {\&} Matthes (2007).pdf:pdf},
journal = {Communication Quarterly},
number = {2},
pages = {231--252},
title = {{Trust in News Media. Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Scale}},
volume = {34},
year = {2007}
}
@incollection{KuklinskiQuirk2000,
address = {Cambridge},
author = {Kuklinski, James H. and Quirk, Paul J},
booktitle = {Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality},
editor = {McCubbins, Mathew D. and Lupia, Arthur and Popkin, Samuel L.},
keywords = {Bias,Heuristics,Opinions},
mendeley-tags = {Bias,Heuristics,Opinions},
pages = {153--182},
title = {{Reconsidering the Rational Public: Cognition, Heuristics, and Mass Opinion}},
year = {2000}
}
@article{Althaus1998,
abstract = {Contruly to much of the literature on collective opinion, I find that the low levels and uneven social distribution ofpolitical knowledge in the mass public often cause opinion surveys to misrepresent the mix of voices in a society. To assess the bias introduced by information effects, I compare 'ffully informed" collective preferences simulated from actual survey data to collective preferences revealed in the original data. Analysis of policy questions from the 1988 and 1992 American National Election Studies shows that group differences in knowledge, along with the public's modest average level of political knowledge, can cause signijicant distortions in measures of collective opinion. The mass public may appear more progressive on some issues and more conservative on others than would be the case if all citizens were equally well informed. To the extent that opinion polls influence democratic politics, this suggests that information effects can impair the responsiveness of governments to their citizens.},
author = {Althaus, Scott L.},
doi = {10.2307/2585480},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Althaus (1998).pdf:pdf},
isbn = {0003-0554},
issn = {00030554},
journal = {The American Political Science Review},
number = {3},
pages = {545--558},
title = {{Information Effects in Collective Information Effects Preferences}},
volume = {92},
year = {1998}
}
@article{MacCoun1998,
abstract = {The latter half of this century has seen an erosion in the perceived legitimacy of science as an impartial means of finding truth. Many research topics are the subject of highly politicized dispute; indeed, the objectivity of the entire discipline of psychology has been called into question. This essay examines attempts to use science to study science: specifically, bias in the interpretation and use of empirical research findings. I examine theory and research on a range of cognitive and motivational mechanisms for bias. Interestingly, not all biases are normatively proscribed; biased interpretations are defensible under some conditions, so long as those conditions are made explicit. I consider a variety of potentially corrective mechanisms, evaluate prospects for collective rationality, and compare inquisitorial and adversarial models of science.},
author = {MacCoun, Robert J.},
doi = {10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.259},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/MacCoun (1998).pdf:pdf},
issn = {0066-4308},
journal = {Annual Review of Psychology},
keywords = {advocacy,ideology,judgment,methodology,politics,values},
number = {1},
pages = {259--287},
title = {{Biases in the interpretation and use of research results}},
volume = {49},
year = {1998}
}
@article{Brydges2018,
abstract = {Misinformation often affects inferences and judgments even after it has been retracted and discredited. This is known as the continued influence effect. Memory processes have been theorized to contribute to the continued influence effect, and much previous research has focussed on the role of long-term memory processes at the time misinformation is retrieved during inferential reasoning and judgments. Recently, however, experimental research has focussed upon the role of working memory (WM) processes engaged in the updating and integration of information, when the retraction is encoded. From an individual differences perspective, susceptibility to continued influence effects should be predicted by a person's WM abilities, if continued reliance on misinformation is influenced, at least in part, by insufficient integration of the initial misinformation and its subsequent retraction. Consequently, we hypothesized that WM capacity would predict susceptibility to continued influence effects uniquely and more substantially than short-term memory (STM) capacity. Participants (N = 216) completed a continued-influence task, as well as a battery of WM and STM capacity tasks. Based on a latent variable model, our hypothesis was supported (WM capacity: $\beta$ = −0.36, p =.013; STM capacity: $\beta$ = 0.22, p =.187). Consequently, we suggest that low WM capacity is a measurable “risk factor” for continued reliance on misinformation.},
author = {Brydges, Christopher R. and Gignac, Gilles E. and Ecker, Ullrich K.H.},
doi = {10.1016/j.intell.2018.03.009},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Brydgesetal2018.pdf:pdf},
issn = {01602896},
journal = {Intelligence},
keywords = {Continued influence effect,Individual differences,Short-term memory,Working memory},
number = {June},
pages = {117--122},
publisher = {Elsevier},
title = {{Working memory capacity, short-term memory capacity, and the continued influence effect: A latent-variable analysis}},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2018.03.009},
volume = {69},
year = {2018}
}
@book{PettyCacioppo1986,
address = {New York, NY},
author = {Petty, Richard E. and Cacioppo, John T.},
doi = {10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1},
publisher = {Springer},
title = {{Communication and Persuasion. Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change}},
year = {1986}
}
@article{Aronsonetal1963,
author = {Aronson, Elliot and Turner, Judith A. and Carlsmith, J. Merrill},
doi = {10.1037/h0045513},
journal = {The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology},
number = {1},
pages = {31--36},
title = {{Communicator credibility and communication discrepancy as determinants of opinion change}},
volume = {67},
year = {1963}
}
@article{Ryffel2014,
abstract = {This study examined the influence of an emotionally arousing writing style on attitude formation and change. It has been proposed that different writing styles induce attitudes based on either affect or cognition and with either high or low certainty. Previous work indicates that the interplay of these attitude characteristics determines the persuasiveness of emotional and rational media appeals. To test the hypotheses, participants in an experimental study read articles from a magazine about a fictitious attitude object. In the first step, 4 different types of attitudes varying in base and level of certainty were induced through a respectively manipulated article. In the second step, these attitudes were challenged by an additional article, which presented either an emotional or rational persuasive appeal. The results supported hypotheses on attitude induction through media stimuli and 3 of 4 hypotheses regarding the persuasiveness of emotionally and rationally written articles.},
author = {Ryffel, Fabian Alexander and Wirz, Dominique Stefanie and K{\"{u}}hne, Rinaldo and Wirth, Werner},
doi = {10.1080/15213269.2014.933850},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Ryffel et al. - 2014 - How Emotional Media Reports Influence Attitude Formation and Change The Interplay of Attitude Base, Attitude Cert.pdf:pdf},
issn = {1521-3269},
journal = {Media Psychology},
keywords = {Emotionality,Opinions,Persuasion},
mendeley-tags = {Emotionality,Opinions,Persuasion},
number = {May 2017},
pages = {397--419},
title = {{How Emotional Media Reports Influence Attitude Formation and Change: The Interplay of Attitude Base, Attitude Certainty, and Persuasion}},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2014.933850},
volume = {17},
year = {2014}
}
@article{Metzger2010,
abstract = {The tremendous amount of information available online has resulted in considerable research on information and source credibility. The vast majority of scholars, however, assume that individuals work in isolation to form credibility opinions and that people must assess information credibility in an effortful and time-consuming manner. Focus group data from 109 participants were used to examine these assumptions. Results show thatmost users rely on others to make credibility assessments, often through the use of group-based tools. Results also indicate that rather than systematically processing information, participants routinely invoked cognitive heuristics to evaluate the credibility of information and sources online. These findings are leveraged to suggest a number of avenues for further credibility theorizing, research, and practice},
author = {Metzger, Miriam J. and Flanagin, Andrew J. and Medders, Ryan B.},
doi = {10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x},
isbn = {0021-9916$\backslash$n1460-2466},
issn = {00219916},
journal = {Journal of Communication},
keywords = {Source credibility},
mendeley-tags = {Source credibility},
number = {3},
pages = {413--439},
title = {{Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online}},
volume = {60},
year = {2010}
}
@techreport{Bundeswahlleiter2017,
author = {Bundeswahlleiter},
title = {{Bundestagswahl 2017}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Dittoetal2018a,
abstract = {One form of partisan bias is the tendency to more readily accept the validity of information that affirms one's political beliefs than information that challenges those beliefs. Both liberals and conservatives accuse their political opponents of partisan bias, but is there empirical evidence that one side of the political aisle is indeed more biased than the other? To address this question, we meta-analyzed the results of 41 experimental studies of partisan bias involving over 12,000 participants who identified their political ideology. Based on previous literature, two hypotheses were tested: an asymmetry hypothesis (predicting greater partisan bias in conservatives than liberals) and a symmetry hypothesis (predicting equal levels of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives). Overall partisan bias was robust (r = .254) and there was strong support for the symmetry hypothesis: liberals (r = .248) and conservatives (r = .247) showed nearly identical levels of bias across studies. Several methodological features moderated the degree of overall bias, and the relative magnitude of bias in liberals and conservatives differed across political topics. Implications of the current findings for the ongoing ideological symmetry debate, and partisan bias' role in scientific discourse and political conflict are discussed.},
author = {Ditto, Peter H. and Liu, Brittany S. and Clark, Cory J. and Wojcik, Sean P. and Chen, Eric E. and Grady, Rebecca H. and Celniker, Jared B. and Zinger, Joanne F.},
doi = {10.1177/1745691617746796},
eprint = {/doi.org/10.1007/s10551- 015-2769-z.For},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Downloads/Ditto et al. (2018).pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1055101527},
issn = {17456924},
journal = {Perspectives on Psychological Science},
keywords = {bias,ideology,meta-analysis,motivated reasoning,politics},
pmid = {29851554},
primaryClass = {https:},
title = {{At Least Bias Is Bipartisan: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Partisan Bias in Liberals and Conservatives}},
year = {2018}
}
@article{Laymanetal2014,
author = {Layman, Geoffrey C. and Green, John C. and Kalkan, Kerem Ozan},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Laymann et al (2014).pdf:pdf},
journal = {Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion},
keywords = {american public opinion,barack obama,muslims},
number = {3},
pages = {534--555},
title = {{A Muslim President ? Misperceptions of Barack Obama's Faith in the 2008 Presidential Campaign}},
volume = {53},
year = {2014}
}
@article{Kahanetal2017c,
abstract = {This article describes evidence suggesting that science curiosity counteracts politically biased information processing. This finding is in tension with two bodies of research. The first casts doubt on the existence of “curiosity” as a measurable disposition. The other suggests that individual differences in cognition related to science comprehension—of which science curiosity, if it exists, would presumably be one—do not mitigate politically biased information processing but instead aggravate it. The article describes the scale-development strategy employed to overcome the problems associated with meas- uring science curiosity. It also reports data, observational and experimental, showing that science cu- riosity promotes open-minded engagement with information that is contrary to individuals' political predispositions. We conclude by identifying a series of concrete research questions posed by these results.},
author = {Kahan, Dan M. and Landrum, Asheley R. and Carpenter, Katie and Helft, Laura and Jamieson, Kathleen Hall},
doi = {10.1111/pops.12396},
journal = {Advances in Political Psychology},
keywords = {Experiment,Information,Misinformation,Motivated reasoning,Observational,Science curiosity},
mendeley-tags = {Experiment,Information,Misinformation,Motivated reasoning,Observational,Science curiosity},
number = {1},
pages = {179--199},
title = {{Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing}},
volume = {38},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Vraga2011,
abstract = {Changes in the information society, especially the rise of blogs, have refocused attention on questions ofmedia modality, source identification, and motivation in online environments. We manipulate the structure of a blogger's critique on a news story (global vs. interspersed) and the partisan target of the blogger (Democrats vs. Republicans) in an experiment embedded in an online survey. Our results support our expectations: The more difficult story format decreases the ability of less motivated readers to correctly identify the source of their information, without affecting the motivated. These effects of structure on source identification are democratically consequential when people rely on blogs for facts about public affairs without the proper cautionary caveats regarding the credibility of the source.},
author = {Vraga, Emily K. and Edgerly, Stephanie and Wang, Bryan M. and Shah, Dhavan V.},
doi = {10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01581.x},
isbn = {00219916},
issn = {00219916},
journal = {Journal of Communication},
number = {5},
pages = {795--815},
title = {{Who Taught Me That? Repurposed News, Blog Structure, and Source Identification}},
volume = {61},
year = {2011}
}
@article{VreeseBoomgaarden2006,
author = {de Vreese, Claes H. and Boomgaarden, Hajo G.},
doi = {10.1177/0093650205283100},
isbn = {0093650205},
issn = {0093-6502},
journal = {Communication Research},
number = {1},
pages = {19--37},
title = {{Media Message Flows and Interpersonal Communication. The Conditional Nature of Effects on Public Opinion}},
volume = {33},
year = {2006}
}
@article{Berryetal2012,
abstract = {It is well established that all interactions are symmetric: when the effect of X on Y is conditional on the value of Z, the effect of Z must be conditional on the value of X. Yet the typical practice when testing an interactive theory is to (1) view one variable, Z, as the conditioning variable, (2) offer a hypothesis about how the marginal effect of the other variable, X, is conditional on the value of Z, and (3) construct a marginal effect plot for X to test the theory. We show that the failure to make additional predictions about how the effect of Z varies with the value of X, and to evaluate them with a second marginal effect plot, means that scholars often ignore evidence that can be extremely valuable for testing their theory. As a result, they either understate or, more worryingly, overstate the support for their theories.},
author = {Berry, William D. and Golder, Matt and Milton, Daniel},
doi = {10.1017/S0022381612000199},
isbn = {0022-3816},
issn = {0022-3816},
journal = {The Journal of Politics},
number = {3},
pages = {653--671},
title = {{Improving Tests of Theories Positing Interaction}},
volume = {74},
year = {2012}
}
@misc{Benkler2017,
author = {Benkler, Yochai and Faris, Robert and Roberts, Hal and Zuckerman, Ethan},
booktitle = {Columbia Journalism Review},
pages = {1--12},
title = {{Study: Breitbart-led right-wing media ecosystem altered broader media agenda}},
url = {http://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php},
year = {2017}
}
@article{BrashierMarsh2020,
abstract = {Deceptive claims surround us, embedded in fake news, advertisements, political propaganda, and rumors. How do people know what to believe? Truth judgments reflect inferences drawn from three types of information: base rates, feelings, and consistency with information retrieved from memory. First, people exhibit a bias to accept incoming information, because most claims in our environments are true. Second, people interpret feelings, like ease of processing, as evidence of truth. And third, people can (but do not always) consider whether assertions match facts and source information stored in memory. This three-part framework predicts specific illusions (e.g., truthiness, illusory truth), offers ways to correct stubborn misconceptions, and suggests the importance of converging cues in a post-truth world, where falsehoods travel further and faster than the truth.},
author = {Brashier, Nadia M. and Marsh, Elizabeth J.},
doi = {10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050807},
issn = {0066-4308},
journal = {Annual Review of Psychology},
number = {1},
pages = {499--515},
title = {{Judging Truth}},
volume = {71},
year = {2020}
}
@book{Ladd2011,
address = {Princeton},
author = {Ladd, Jonathan M.},
publisher = {Princeton University Press},
title = {{Why Americans hate the media and how it matters.}},
year = {2011}
}
@article{Lelkesetal2015,
abstract = {Over the last two decades, as the number of media choices available to consumers has exploded, so too have worries over self-selection into media audiences. Some fear greater apathy, others heightened polarization. In this paper, we shed light on the latter possibility. We identify the impact of access to broadband Internet on affective polarization by exploiting differences in broadband availability brought about by variation in state right-of-way regulations (ROW). We merge state-level regulation data with county-level broadband penetration data and a large-N sample of survey data from 2004 to 2008 and find that access to broadband Internet increases partisan hostility. The effect occurs in both years and is stable across levels of political interest. We also find that access to broadband Internet boosts partisans' consumption of partisan media, a likely cause of increased polarization.},
author = {Lelkes, Yphtach and Sood, Gaurav and Iyengar, Shanto},
doi = {10.1111/ajps.12237},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Lelkes, Sood, Iyengar - 2015 - The Hostile Audience The Effect of Access to Broadband Internet on Partisan Affect.pdf:pdf},
issn = {15405907},
journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
keywords = {Natural Experiment,Polarization,Survey},
mendeley-tags = {Natural Experiment,Polarization,Survey},
number = {1},
pages = {5--20},
title = {{The Hostile Audience: The Effect of Access to Broadband Internet on Partisan Affect}},
volume = {61},
year = {2015}
}
@article{Fragale2004,
abstract = {Three studies demonstrate that individuals often rely on a "belief force equals credible source" heuristic to make source judgments, wherein they assume that statements they believe originate from credible sources. In Study 1, participants who were exposed to a statement many times (and hence believed it) were more likely to attribute it to Consumer Reports than to the National Enquirer. In Study 2, participants read a murder investigation article containing evidence against two suspects from credible and noncredible sources. When participants believed a particular suspect to be guilty, they misattributed evidence incriminating that suspect to the high-credibility source. Study 3 demonstrated that this phenomenon occurs because individuals assume their beliefs are true and that true beliefs come from credible sources; when participants were given feedback that their beliefs were incorrect, the relationship between beliefs and source inferences did not occur.},
author = {Fragale, Alison R. and Heath, Chip},
doi = {10.1177/0146167203259933},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Fragale {\&} Heath (2004).pdf:pdf},
issn = {01461672},
journal = {Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin},
keywords = {Belief,Rumors,Source credibility,Source monitoring},
number = {2},
pages = {225--236},
title = {{Evolving Informational Credentials: The (Mis)Attribution of Believable Facts to Credible Sources}},
volume = {30},
year = {2004}
}
@article{Chebatetal1988,
author = {Chebat, Jean-Charles and Filiatrault, Pierre and Laroche, Michel and Watson, Catherine},
doi = {10.1080/00223980.1988.9915535},
journal = {Journal of Psychology;},
number = {6},
pages = {609--621},
title = {{Compensatory effects of cognitive characteristics of the source, the message, and the receiver upon attitude change}},
volume = {122},
year = {1988}
}
@article{Flynnetal2017,
abstract = {Political misperceptions can distort public debate and undermine people's ability to form meaningful opinions. Why do people often hold these false or unsupported beliefs and why is it sometimes so difficult to convince them otherwise? We argue that political misperceptions are typically rooted in directionally motivated reasoning, which may limit the effectiveness of cor- rective information about controversial issues and political figures. In addi- tion, we demonstrate the need for further research on the process by which directional motivations shape factual beliefs and the role that elites and the media play in spreading misinformation.},
author = {Flynn, D J and Reifler, Jason and Nyhan, Brendan},
doi = {10.1111/pops.12394},
isbn = {9780511535918},
issn = {0162895X},
journal = {Advances in Political Psychology},
keywords = {2006,2012,Fake News,Literature Review,Misbeliefs,Misinformation,competence vary,corrections,druckman,e,empirical research in public,enough to participate meaning-,experiments,fully in politics,g,lupia,misinformation,misperceptions,motivated reasoning,opinion yields a relatively,question of how,scholars have long debated,simple answer to the,whether citizens are knowledgeable,while standards of democratic},
mendeley-tags = {Fake News,Literature Review,Misbeliefs,Misinformation},
pages = {127--150},
pmid = {303044788},
title = {{The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs about Politics}},
volume = {38},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Sides2016,
abstract = {How much do factual information and other kinds of frames affect policy attitudes? And whose attitudes are most malleable? I address these questions via two original survey experiments about the estate tax. I demonstrate that correct information about who is potentially subject to the estate tax increased support for the estate tax. Furthermore, this information did not appear any less persuasive than pro- or antitax arguments that emphasized values such as equality or fairness. Finally, the effects of this information were concentrated among lower income conservatives and Republicans. These findings contrast with previous research on estate tax attitudes and have broader implications for the study of political information, framing, and policy attitudes.},
author = {Sides, John},
doi = {10.1177/1532673X15610190},
journal = {American Politics Research},
keywords = {attitudes,experiment,information,opinion change},
mendeley-tags = {attitudes,experiment,information,opinion change},
number = {3},
pages = {387--414},
title = {{Stories or Science? Facts, Frames, and Policy Attitudes}},
volume = {44},
year = {2016}
}
@unpublished{Tappinetal2018,
author = {Tappin, Ben M. and Pennycook, Gordon and Rand, David G},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Tappin et al. (2018).pdf:pdf},
pages = {1--84},
title = {{Rethinking the link between cognitive sophistication and identity-protective bias in political belief formation}},
year = {2018}
}
@article{Druckmanetal2012,
author = {Druckman, James N and Fein, Jordan and Leeper, Thomas J},
doi = {10.1017/S0003055412000123},
journal = {American Political Science Review},
number = {2},
pages = {430--454},
title = {{A Source of Bias in Public Opinion Stability}},
volume = {106},
year = {2012}
}
@article{Pilditch2017,
author = {Pilditch, Toby and Custers, Ruud},
doi = {10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.04.006},
issn = {00016918},
journal = {Acta Psychologica},
keywords = {Active learning,Communicated beliefs,Confirmation bias,Instruction effects,Misbeliefs,Order effects,Probabilistic reversal learning},
mendeley-tags = {Confirmation bias,Misbeliefs},
number = {November 2016},
pages = {0--69},
publisher = {Elsevier},
title = {{Communicated beliefs about action-outcomes: The role of initial confirmation in the adoption and maintenance of unsupported beliefs.}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Metzger2003,
author = {Metzger, Miriam J and Flanagin, Andrew J and Eyal, Keren and Lemus, Daisy R and Metzger, Miriam J and Flanagin, Andrew J and Eyal, Keren and Lemus, Daisy R and Mccann, Robert M},
doi = {10.1080/23808985.2003.11679029},
journal = {Annals of the International Communication Association},
number = {1},
pages = {293--335},
title = {{Credibility for the 21st Century: Integrating Perspectives on Source, Message, and Media Credibility in the Contemporary Media Environment}},
volume = {27},
year = {2003}
}
@unpublished{Lewandowsky2017,
author = {Lewandowsky, Stephan and Ecker, Ullrich K. H. and Cook, John},
pages = {1--57},
title = {{Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and coping with the post-truth era}},
year = {2017}
}
@misc{ARD2018,
author = {ARD},
booktitle = {ard.de},
title = {{Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter in der ARD}},
url = {http://www.ard.de/home/die-ard/fakten/Mitarbeiterinnen{\_}und{\_}Mitarbeiter{\_}in{\_}der{\_}ARD/309568/index.html},
urldate = {2018-09-30},
year = {2018}
}
@article{Bullocketal2015,
abstract = {Partisanship seems to affect factual beliefs about politics. For example, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say that the deficit rose during the Clinton administration; Democrats are more likely to say that inflation rose under Reagan. What remains unclear is whether such patterns reflect differing beliefs among partisans or instead reflect a desire to praise one party or criticize another. To shed light on this question, we develop a model of partisan survey response and report two experiments that are based on the model. The experiments show that small payments for correct and “don't know” responses sharply diminish the gap between Democrats and Republicans in responses to “partisan” factual questions. Our conclusion is that the apparent gulf in factual beliefs between members of different parties may be more illusory than real.},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
arxivId = {arXiv:1011.1669v3},
author = {Bullock, John G. and Gerber, Alan S. and Hill, Seth J. and Huber, Gregory A.},
doi = {10.1561/100.00014074},
eprint = {arXiv:1011.1669v3},
isbn = {9788578110796},
issn = {15540634},
journal = {Quarterly Journal of Political Science},
pages = {519--578},
pmid = {25246403},
title = {{Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs about Politics}},
volume = {10},
year = {2015}
}
@article{WalgraveAelst2006,
abstract = {Recently the study of the relationship between the media and the political agenda has received growing attention of both media and political science scholars. However, these research efforts have not led to a general discussion or a real theory on the media's political agenda setting power. This article first analytically confronts the often contra- dictory results of the available evidence. Then, it sketches the broad outline of a prelimi- nary theory. Political agenda setting by the media is contingent upon a number of conditions. The input variables of the model are the kind of issues covered, the specific media outlet, and the sort of coverage. Political context variables, the features of the political actors at stake, are at the heart of the model. The model proposes five sorts of output ranging from no political adoption to fast substantial adoption of media issues},
author = {Walgrave, Stefaan and {Van Aelst}, Peter},
doi = {10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00005.x},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Walgrave {\&} van Aelst (2006).pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1460-2466},
issn = {00219916},
journal = {Journal of Communication},
number = {1},
pages = {88--109},
title = {{The contingency of the mass media's political agenda setting power: Toward a preliminary theory}},
volume = {56},
year = {2006}
}
@techreport{Forschungsgruppe2017,
author = {{Forschungsgruppe Wahlen}},
institution = {Forschungsgruppe Wahlen},
title = {{Politbarometer: Langzeitentwicklung Politik II}},
url = {http://www.forschungsgruppe.de/Umfragen/Politbarometer/Langzeitentwicklung{\_}-{\_}Themen{\_}im{\_}Ueberblick/Politik{\_}II/},
year = {2017}
}
@techreport{YouGov2017,
author = {YouGov},
pages = {1--195},
title = {{The Economist/YouGov Poll}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{DruckmanBolsen2011,
author = {Druckman, James N and Bolsen, Toby},
doi = {10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01562.x},
journal = {Journal of Communication},
pages = {659--688},
title = {{Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions About Emergent Technologies}},
volume = {61},
year = {2011}
}
@unpublished{Lyons2017,
author = {Lyons, Benjamin},
booktitle = {International Journal of Public Opinion Research},
title = {{When Readers Believe Journalists: Effects of Adjudication in Varied Dispute Contexts}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{FlanaginMetzger2013,
abstract = {Networked digital media present new challenges for people to locate information that they can trust. At the same time, societal reliance on information that is available solely or primarily via the Internet is increasing. This article discusses how and why digitally networked communication environments alter traditional notions of trust, and presents research that examines how information consumers make judgments about the credibility and accuracy of information they encounter online. Based on this research, the article focuses on the use of cognitive heuristics in credibility evaluation. Findings from recent studies are used to illustrate the types of cognitive heuristics that information consumers employ when determining what sources and information to trust online. The article concludes with an agenda for future research that is needed to better understand the role and influence of cognitive heuristics in credibility evaluation in computer-mediated communication contexts. {\textcopyright} 2013 Elsevier B.V.},
author = {Metzger, Miriam J. and Flanagin, Andrew J.},
doi = {10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012},
issn = {03782166},
journal = {Journal of Pragmatics},
keywords = {Cognitive heuristics,Credibility,Trust},
pages = {210--220},
title = {{Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics}},
volume = {59},
year = {2013}
}
@techreport{Pew2016a,
author = {{Pew Research Center}},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Pew Research Center - 2016 - Many Americans Believe Fake News Is Sowing Confusion.pdf:pdf},
title = {{Many Americans Believe Fake News Is Sowing Confusion}},
url = {http://www.pewresearch.org/about/},
year = {2016}
}
@article{SuhayErisen2018,
abstract = {Political psychologists have established that politically motivated reasoning is a common phenomenon; however, the field knows comparatively less about the psychological mechanisms that drive it. Drawing on advances in the understanding of the relevance of emotion to political reasoning and behavior, we argue that anger likely plays a major role in motivating individuals to engage in the biased assimilation of political information—an evaluative bias in favor of information that bolsters one's views and against information that undercuts them. We test this proposition with two online studies, the second of which includes a quasirepresentative sample of Americans. The studies support our expectations. Individuals felt more negative emotions toward arguments that undermined their attitudes and positive emotions toward arguments that confirmed them; however, anger was nearly alone in fueling biased reactions to issue arguments.},
author = {Suhay, Elizabeth and Erisen, Cengiz},
doi = {10.1111/pops.12463},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Suhay {\&} Erison (2017).pdf:pdf},
issn = {14679221},
journal = {Political Psychology},
keywords = {anger,biased assimilation,emotion,motivated reasoning,political attitudes},
number = {4},
pages = {793--810},
title = {{The Role of Anger in the Biased Assimilation of Political Information}},
volume = {39},
year = {2018}
}
@article{Anspachetal2019,
author = {Anspach, Nicolas M. and Jennings, Jay T. and Arceneaux, Kevin},
doi = {10.1177/2053168018816189},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Anspach et al. (2019).pdf:pdf},
journal = {Research and Politics},
pages = {1--9},
title = {{A little bit of knowledge: Facebook's News Feed and self-perceptions of knowledge}},
year = {2019}
}
@article{Petersen2020,
abstract = {Large-scale mobilization is often accompanied by the emergence of demagogic leaders and the circulation of unverified rumors, especially if the mobilization happens in support of violent or disruptive projects. In those circumstances, researchers and commentators frequently explain the mobilization as a result of mass manipulation. Against this view, evolutionary psychologists have provided evidence that human psychology contains mechanisms for avoiding manipulation and new studies suggest that political manipulation attempts are, in general, ineffective. Instead, we can understand decisions to follow demagogic leaders and circulate fringe rumors as attempts to solve a social problem inherent to mobilization processes: The coordination problem. Essentially, these decisions reflect attempts to align the attention of individuals already disposed for conflict.},
author = {Petersen, Michael Bang},
doi = {10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.02.003},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Petersen2020.pdf:pdf},
issn = {2352250X},
journal = {Current Opinion in Psychology},
pages = {71--75},
publisher = {Elsevier Ltd},
title = {{The evolutionary psychology of mass mobilization: how disinformation and demagogues coordinate rather than manipulate}},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.02.003},
volume = {35},
year = {2020}
}
@article{TsfatiCappella2005,
abstract = {Prior research has found only modest associations between news media trust and ex- posure.Many news skeptics report moderate to high levels of mainstream news expo- sure, despite their mistrust of mainstream news. Why do people watch news they do not trust? This study investigates the moderating role played by the psychological construct of “the need for cognition” (NFC) in this association. An NFC × Media Skepticism interaction is hypothesized and tested on survey data (N = 424). Results provide evidence for such an interaction. For those with a reduced NFC, mainstream media skepticism is strongly associated with news exposure. As NFC increases, the association between news skepticism and exposure disappears. It is concluded that people consume news they do not trust when their media skepticism is irrelevant to their motivation for news exposure. Trust},
author = {Tsfati, Yariv and Cappella, Joseph N.},
doi = {10.1207/S1532785XMEP0703},
journal = {Media Psychology},
keywords = {Media Scepticism,Media Trust,Need for cognition,Observational,Survey},
mendeley-tags = {Media Scepticism,Media Trust,Need for cognition,Observational,Survey},
pages = {251--271},
title = {{Why Do People Watch News They Do Not Trust? The Need for Cognition as a Moderator in the Association Between News Media Skepticism and Exposure}},
volume = {7},
year = {2005}
}
@article{Mutz2012,
abstract = {There is a huge difference between public perceptions of the power of media in elections and academic evidence of its influence. This gap stems from the fact that the public uses different forms of evi- dence than academics use to infer media power. This essay outlines the reasons for this great divide, then highlights the seriousness of its consequences for the allocation of political resources. Public beliefs in omnipotent media contribute to wasted time and money; ultimately, they undermine the legitimacy of election outcomes. As},
author = {Mutz, Diana C.},
doi = {10.1162/DAED_a_00175},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Mutz (2012).pdf:pdf},
issn = {00115266},
journal = {Daedalus},
number = {4},
pages = {83--97},
title = {{The Great Divide: Campaign media in the American Mind}},
volume = {141},
year = {2012}
}
@article{Grinbergetal2019,
author = {Grinberg, Nir and Joseph, Kenneth and Friedland, Lisa and Swire-thompson, Briony and Lazer, David},
number = {January},
pages = {374--378},
title = {{Fake news on Twitter during the 2016}},
volume = {378},
year = {2019}
}
@unpublished{Osmundsenetal2020,
author = {Osmundsen, Mathias and Bor, Alexander and Bechmann, Peter Bjerregaard and Vahlstru, Anja and Petersen, Michael Bang},
title = {{Partisan polarization is the primary psychologicalmotivation behind political fake news sharing on Twitter}},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Shenetal2018,
abstract = {Fake or manipulated images propagated through the Web and social media have the capacity to deceive, emotionally distress, and influence public opinions and actions. Yet few studies have examined how individuals evaluate the authenticity of images that accompany online stories. This article details a 6-batch large-scale online experiment using Amazon Mechanical Turk that probes how people evaluate image credibility across online platforms. In each batch, participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 28 news-source mockups featuring a forged image, and they evaluated the credibility of the images based on several features. We found that participants' Internet skills, photo-editing experience, and social media use were significant predictors of image credibility evaluation, while most social and heuristic cues of online credibility (e.g. source trustworthiness, bandwagon, intermediary trustworthiness) had no significant impact. Viewers' attitude toward a depicted issue also positively influenced their credibi...},
author = {Shen, Cuihua and Kasra, Mona and Pan, Wenjing and Bassett, Grace A and Malloch, Yining and O'Brien, James F},
doi = {10.1177/1461444818799526},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Downloads/Shen et al. (2018).pdf:pdf},
issn = {1461-4448},
journal = {New Media {\&} Society},
pages = {146144481879952},
title = {{Fake images: The effects of source, intermediary, and digital media literacy on contextual assessment of image credibility online}},
year = {2018}
}
@article{Berloetal1969,
author = {Berlo, David K . and Lemert, James B. and Mertz, Robert J.},
journal = {The Public Opinion Quarterly},
number = {4},
pages = {563--576},
title = {{Dimensions for Evaluating the Acceptability of Message Sources}},
volume = {33},
year = {1969}
}
@article{Marshall2017,
author = {Marshall, Jonathan Paul},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Marshall - 2017 - Disinformation Society, Communication and Cosmopolitan Democracy.pdf:pdf},
number = {2},
title = {{Disinformation Society, Communication and Cosmopolitan Democracy}},
volume = {9},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Tandoc2017,
author = {Tandoc, Edson C and Ling, Richard and Westlund, Oscar and Duffy, Andrew and Goh, Debbie and {Zheng Wei}, Lim},
doi = {10.1177/1461444817731756},
issn = {1461-4448},
journal = {New Media {\&} Society},
title = {{Audiences' acts of authentication in the age of fake news: A conceptual framework}},
url = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444817731756},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Birnbaum1983,
author = {Birnbaum, Michael H and Mellers, Barbara A},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Birnbaum {\&} Mellers 1983.pdf:pdf},
number = {4},
pages = {792--804},
title = {{Bayesian Inference: Combining Base Rates With Opinions of Sources Who Vary in Credibility}},
volume = {45},
year = {1983}
}
@article{Hart2012,
abstract = {The deficit-model of science communication assumes increased communication about science issues will move public opinion toward the scientific consensus. However, in the case of climate change, public polarization about the issue has increased in recent years, not diminished. In this study, we draw from theories of motivated reasoning, social identity, and persuasion to examine how science-based messages may increase public polarization on controversial science issues such as climate change. Exposing 240 adults to simulated news stories about possible climate change health impacts on different groups, we found the influence of identification with potential victims was contingent on participants' political partisanship. This partisanship increased the degree of political polarization on support for climate mitigation policies and resulted in a boomerang effect among Republican participants. Implications for understanding the role of motivated reasoning within the context of science communication are discussed. Keywords},
author = {Hart, P. Sol and Nisbet, Erik. C.},
doi = {10.1177/0093650211416646},
isbn = {0093-6502},
issn = {0093-6502},
journal = {Communication Research},
keywords = {Climate change,Experiment,Identity protection,Motivated reasoning,Polarization,Social Identity},
mendeley-tags = {Climate change,Experiment,Identity protection,Motivated reasoning,Polarization,Social Identity},
number = {6},
pages = {701--723},
title = {{Boomerang Effects in Science Communication: How Motivated Reasoning and Identity Cues Amplify Opinion Polarization About Climate Mitigation Policies}},
volume = {39},
year = {2012}
}
@article{Swireetal2017,
abstract = {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.},
author = {Swire, Briony and Berinsky, Adam J. and Lewandowsky, Stephan and Ecker, Ullrich K. H.},
doi = {10.1098/rsos.160802},
isbn = {0000000316552},
issn = {2054-5703},
journal = {Royal Society Open Science},
title = {{Processing political misinformation: comprehending the Trump phenomenon}},
volume = {4},
year = {2017}
}
@unpublished{Shao2017,
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
arxivId = {arXiv:1707.07592v1},
author = {Shao, Chengcheng and Ciampaglia, Giovanni Luca and Varol, Onur and Flammini, Alessandro and Menczer, Filippo},
eprint = {arXiv:1707.07592v1},
pages = {1--16},
title = {{The spread of fake news by social bots}},
year = {2017}
}
@techreport{MediaInsight2017a,
address = {Chicago},
author = {{Media Insight Project}},
institution = {Associated Press/American Entreprise Institute/NORC},
title = {{'Who Shared it?' How Americans Decide what News to Trust on Social Media}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Westfalletal2015,
author = {Westfall, Jacob and Boven, Leaf Van and Chambers, John R and Judd, Charles M},
doi = {10.1177/1745691615569849},
journal = {Perspectives on Psychological Science},
number = {2},
pages = {145--158},
title = {{Perceiving Political Polarization in the United States: Party Identity Strength and Attitude Extremity Exacerbate the Perceived Partisan Divide}},
volume = {10},
year = {2015}
}
@article{Shu2016,
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
arxivId = {arXiv:1708.01967v2},
author = {Shu, Kai and Sliva, Amy and Wang, Suhang and Tang, Jiliang and Liu, Huan},
eprint = {arXiv:1708.01967v2},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Shu et al. - 2016 - Fake News Detection on Social Media A Data Mining Perspective.pdf:pdf},
title = {{Fake News Detection on Social Media : A Data Mining Perspective}},
year = {2016}
}
@article{StroudLee2013,
abstract = {By analyzing variability in credibility assessments of news outlets CNN and FOX, this study extends prior research focusing on perceptions of credibility for a single media source. Using national survey data from 2006 and 2008, we find that demographic and political characteristics help to explain different patterns of perceived credibility. Those detecting larger differences between CNN and FOX are more politically knowledgeable and hold more polarized political attitudes. Some findings coincide with research on overall news media trust. Yet other findings demonstrate the importance of considering different patterns. Liberal Democrats were more likely than conservative Republicans to find neither network particularly credible, for example. We also examine the connection between selective exposure and credibility. We find evidence that credibility perceptions for both networks mediate the relationship between political predispositions and cable news use.},
author = {Stroud, Natalie Jomini and Lee, Jae Kook},
doi = {10.1080/15205436.2011.646449},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Stroud {\&} Lee (2013).pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1520-5436},
issn = {15205436},
journal = {Mass Communication and Society},
number = {1},
pages = {67--88},
title = {{Perceptions of Cable News Credibility}},
volume = {16},
year = {2013}
}
@article{Lazeretal2017,
author = {Lazer, David and Baum, Matthew and Grinberg, Nir and Friedland, Lisa and Joseph, Kenneth and Hobbs, Will and Mattsson, Carolina and {Benkler Harvard}, Yochai and Watts, Duncan},
number = {May},
title = {{Combating Fake News: An Agenda for Research and Action Drawn from presentations by}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{JeritBarabas2012,
abstract = {Perceptual bias occurs when beliefs deviate from reality. Democrats and Republicans are thought to be especially susceptible to this type of biased-information processing. And yet we know little about the pervasiveness of perceptual bias outside the domain of ‘‘performance issues'' (e.g., unemployment, inflation) or how individuallevel partisan motivation interacts with the information environment. We investigate these issues in two studies that examine perceptual bias on a wide range of political topics spanning two decades. Using survey data as well as an experiment with diverse subjects, we demonstrate that people perceive the world in a manner consistent with their political views. The result is a selective pattern of learning in which partisans have higher levels of knowledge for facts that confirm their world view and lower levels of knowledge for facts that challenge them. This basic relationship is exaggerated on topics receiving high levels of media coverage.},
author = {Jerit, Jennifer and Barabas, Jason},
doi = {10.1017/S0022381612000187},
isbn = {1468-2508},
issn = {0022-3816},
journal = {The Journal of Politics},
number = {3},
pages = {672--684},
title = {{Partisan Perceptual Bias and the Information Environment}},
volume = {74},
year = {2012}
}
@article{FlanaginMetzger2000,
author = {Flanagin, Andrew J. and Metzger, Miriam J.},
doi = {10.1177/107769900007700304},
isbn = {9781450310482},
journal = {Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly},
number = {3},
pages = {515--540},
title = {{Perceptions of Internet Information Credibility}},
volume = {77},
year = {2000}
}
@article{McDermott2019,
author = {McDermott, Rose},
doi = {10.1017/S104909651800207X},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/McDermott (2019).pdf:pdf},
pages = {1--5},
title = {{Psychological Underpinnings of Post-Truth in Political Beliefs}},
year = {2019}
}
@phdthesis{Waters2016,
author = {Waters, Anna},
title = {{Whose tweets do you trust? Message and messenger Credibility among mainstream and new media news organizations on Twitter}},
url = {https://ir.ua.edu/handle/123456789/2781},
year = {2016}
}
@article{Tuckeretal2017,
abstract = {How can one technology—social media—simultaneously give rise to hopes for liberation in authoritarian regimes, be used for repression by these same regimes, and be harnessed by antisystem actors in democracy? We present a simple framework for reconciling these contradictory developments based on two propositions: 1) that social media give voice to those previously excluded from political discussion by traditional media, and 2) that although social media democratize access to information, the platforms themselves are neither inherently democratic nor nondemocratic, but represent a tool political actors can use for a variety of goals, including, paradoxically, illiberal goals.},
author = {Tucker, Joshua A. and Theocharis, Yannis and Roberts, Margaret E. and Barber{\'{a}}, Pablo},
doi = {10.1353/jod.2017.0064},
issn = {1086-3214},
journal = {Journal of Democracy},
number = {4},
pages = {46--59},
title = {{From Liberation to Turmoil: Social Media And Democracy}},
url = {https://muse.jhu.edu/article/671987},
volume = {28},
year = {2017}
}
@phdthesis{Hunt2016,
abstract = {In this experiment, participants read fake Facebook statuses, unaware that they contained information about general world knowledge. Participants believed that they were participating in a study examining the effect of social media layouts on spatial attention. Participants in the “Correct” condition read Facebook statuses that contained correct facts. Participants in the “Neutral” condition read statuses that alluded to the target facts but did not state them outright. In the “Misleading” condition, participants read statuses identical to the “Correct” condition with the only difference being that the correct target facts were replaced with incorrect words or names. Following the readings, participants then took a spatial visualization test in order to maintain the deception that the experiment was tied to visuospatial attention and to act as a time delay. Participants were then given a 50-question test of general knowledge. The test contained questions related to the target facts from the posts in order to assess whether or not participants would use information from potentially unreliable sources to answer those questions. Participants used information from the posts to answer the questions and many believed that the information was something that they had “always known.” The results suggest that people may be prone to learn misinformation from social media when we are simply “scrolling” through posts in our social networks. People may then integrate that information into their memory as something that is just known.},
author = {Hunt, Andrew P},
keywords = {Experiment,Facebook,Knowledge,Misinformation},
mendeley-tags = {Experiment,Facebook,Knowledge,Misinformation},
title = {{The Passive Acquisition of Misinformation from Social Media}},
year = {2016}
}
@techreport{Marwick,
author = {Marwick, Alice and Lewis, Rebecca},
title = {{Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online}},
year = {2017}
}
@phdthesis{Conover2017,
author = {Wager, Emily M.},
title = {{Correcting Factual Misperceptions: How Source Cues Matter}},
year = {2017}
}
@misc{Mosseri2018,
author = {Mosseri, Adam},
booktitle = {Facebook Newsroom},
title = {{Helping Ensure News on Facebook Is From Trusted Sources}},
urldate = {2018},
year = {2018}
}
@article{Leeper2014,
abstract = {A key characteristic of democratic politics is competition between groups, first of all political parties. Yet, the unavoidably partisan nature of political conflict has had too little influence on scholarship on political psychology. Despite more than 50 years of research on political parties and citizens, we continue to lack a systematic understanding of when and how political parties influence public opinion. We suggest that alternative approaches to political parties and public opinion can be best reconciled and examined through a richer theoretical perspective grounded in motivated reasoning theory. Clearly, parties shape citizens' opinions by mobilizing, influencing, and structuring choices among political alternatives. But the answer to when and how parties influence citizens' reasoning and political opinions depends on an interaction between citizens' motivations, effort, and information generated from the political environment (particularly through competition between parties). The contribution of motivated reasoning, as we describe it, is to provide a coherent theoretical framework for understanding partisan influence on citizens' political opinions. We review recent empirical work consistent with this framework. We also point out puzzles ripe for future research and discuss how partisan motivated reasoning provides a useful point of departure for such work.},
author = {Leeper, Thomas J. and Slothuus, Rune},
doi = {10.1111/pops.12164},
isbn = {1467-9221},
issn = {0162895X},
journal = {Political Psychology},
keywords = {Motivated reasoning,Political parties,Public opinion},
number = {SUPPL.1},
pages = {129--156},
title = {{Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation}},
volume = {35},
year = {2014}
}
@unpublished{Howard2017,
abstract = {Computational propaganda distributes large amounts of misinformation about politics and public policy over social media platforms. The combination of automation and propaganda can significantly impact public opinion during important policy debates, elections, and political crises. We collected data on automation and junk news using major hashtags related to politics in the state of Michigan in the lead up to the 2016 US Presidential Election. (1) In Michigan, conversation about politics over Twitter mirrored the national trends in that Trump- related hashtags were used more than twice as often as Clinton-related hashtags. (2) Social media users in Michigan shared a lot of political content, but the amount of professionally researched political news and information was consistently smaller than the amount of extremist, sensationalist, conspiratorial, masked commentary, fake news and other forms of junk news. (3) Not only did such junk news “outperform” real news, but the proportion of professional news content being shared hit its lowest point the day before the election.},
author = {Howard, Philip N. and Bolsover, Gillian and Kollanyi, Bence and Bradshaw, Samantha and Neudert, Lisa-Maria},
keywords = {API,Fake News,Observational,Twitter},
mendeley-tags = {API,Fake News,Observational,Twitter},
pages = {1--5},
title = {{Junk News and Bots during the U.S. Election: What Were Michigan Voters Sharing Over Twitter?}},
volume = {1},
year = {2016}
}
@article{JohnsonKaye1998,
author = {Johnson, Thomas J. and Kaye, Barbara K.},
journal = {Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly},
number = {2},
pages = {325--340},
title = {{Cruising is believing?: Comparing Internet and traditional sources on media credibility measures.}},
volume = {75},
year = {1988}
}
@article{Wellsetal2009,
author = {Wells, Chris and Reedy, Justin and Gastil, John and Lee, Carolyn},
doi = {10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00735.x},
journal = {Political Psychology},
keywords = {Belief,Information,Misinformation,Political sophistication,Survey,heuristic processing,initiative elections,misinformation,motivated reasoning,political sophistication,public opinion},
mendeley-tags = {Belief,Information,Misinformation,Political sophistication,Survey},
number = {6},
pages = {953--969},
title = {{Information Distortion and Voting Choices: The Origins and Effects of Factual Beliefs in Initiative Elections}},
volume = {30},
year = {2009}
}
@article{Druckman2001b,
author = {Druckman, James N},
doi = {10.1023/A:1015006907312},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Druckman (2001b).pdf:pdf},
journal = {Political Behavior},
keywords = {a century,behav-,cal judgments often depend,competence,for exam-,for nearly half of,framing effects,ioral decision theory,mass communication,on how an issue,or problem is framed,politi-,public opinion,social scientists have shown,that citizens},
number = {3},
pages = {225--256},
title = {{The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence}},
volume = {23},
year = {2001}
}
@techreport{Zick2016,
author = {Zick, Andreas and K{\"{u}}pper, Beate and Krause, Daniela},
isbn = {9783801204884},
title = {{Gespaltene Mitte - Feindselige Zust{\"{a}}nde}},
year = {2016}
}
@article{Pennycooketal2020a,
abstract = {Empiric evidence that fact-checking of fake news done by `FB is not working. What are effective techniques for combating belief in fake news? Tagging fake articles with " Disputed by 3 rd party fact-checkers " warnings and making articles' sources more salient by adding publisher logos are two approaches that have received large-scale rollouts on social media in recent months. Here we assess the effect of these interventions on perceptions of accuracy across seven experiments (total N=7,534). With respect to disputed warnings, we find that tagging articles as disputed did significantly reduce their perceived accuracy relative to a control without tags, but only modestly (d=.20, 3.7 percentage point decrease in headlines judged as accurate). Furthermore, we find a backfire effect – particularly among Trump supporters and those under 26 years of age – whereby untagged fake news stories are seen as more accurate than in the control. We also find a similar spillover effect for real news, whose perceived accuracy is increased by the presence of disputed tags on other headlines. With respect to source salience, we find no evidence that adding a banner with the logo of the headline's publisher had any impact on accuracy judgments whatsoever. Together, these results suggest that the currently deployed approaches are not nearly enough to effectively undermine belief in fake news, and new (empirically supported) strategies are needed.},
author = {Pennycook, Gordon and Rand, David G.},
doi = {10.2139/ssrn.3035384},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Pennycooketal2019.pdf:pdf},
journal = {Management Science},
keywords = {fact-checking,fake news,misinformation,news media,social media,source credibility},
title = {{The Implied Truth Effect: Attaching Warnings to a Subset of Fake News Headlines Increases Perceived Accuracy of Headlines Without Warnings}},
volume = {Articles i},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Nisbetetal2015,
abstract = {There has been deepening concern about political polarization in public attitudes toward the scientific community. The “intrinsic thesis” attributes this polarization to psychological deficiencies among conservatives as compared to liberals. The “contextual thesis” makes no such claims about inherent psychological differences between conservatives and liberals, but rather points to interacting institutional and psychological factors as the forces driving polarization. We evaluate the evidence for both theses in the context of developing and testing a theoretical model of audience response to dissonant science communication. Conducting a national online experiment (N = 1,500), we examined audience reactions to both conservative-dissonant and liberal-dissonant science messages and consequences for trust in the scientific community. Our results suggest liberals and conservatives alike react negatively to dissonant science communication, resulting in diminished trust of the scientific community. We discuss how our findings link to the larger debate about political polarization of science and implications for science communicators.},
author = {Nisbet, Eric C. and Cooper, Kathryn E. and Garrett, R. Kelly},
doi = {10.1177/0002716214555474},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Nisbet, Cooper, Garrett - 2015 - The Partisan Brain How Dissonant Science Messages Lead Conservatives and Liberals to (Dis)Trust Science.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {0002-7162, 1552-3349},
issn = {0002-7162},
journal = {The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science},
keywords = {Misbeliefs,Motivated reasoning,Polarization,Science trust},
mendeley-tags = {Misbeliefs,Motivated reasoning,Polarization,Science trust},
number = {1},
pages = {36--66},
title = {{The Partisan Brain: How Dissonant Science Messages Lead Conservatives and Liberals to (Dis)Trust Science}},
url = {http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0002716214555474},
volume = {658},
year = {2015}
}
@article{GazianoMcGrath1986,
author = {Gaziano, Cecilie and McGrath, Kristin},
journal = {Journalism Quarterly},
number = {3},
pages = {451--462},
title = {{Measuring the Concept of Credibility}},
volume = {63},
year = {1986}
}
@article{AndreoliWorchel1978,
author = {Andreoli, Virginia and Worchel, Stephen},
journal = {The Public Opinion Quarterly},
number = {1},
pages = {59--70},
title = {{Effects of Media, Communicator, and Message Position on Attitude Change}},
url = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/2748091{\%}255Cnhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2748091?seq=1{\&}cid=pdf-reference{\#}references{\_}tab{\_}contents{\%}255Cnhttp://about.jstor.org/terms},
volume = {42},
year = {1978}
}
@misc{Harrach2017,
author = {Harrach, Nike},
booktitle = {zdf.de},
month = {sep},
title = {{Subtile Einmischung statt Holzhammer-Methode}},
url = {https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute/fake-news-im-wahlkampf-zdfcheck-100.html},
year = {2017}
}
@article{ShinThorson2017,
abstract = {Using large Twitter datasets collected during the 2012 U.S. presidential election, we examined how partisanship shapes patterns of sharing and commenting on candidate fact-check rulings. Our results indicate that partisans selectively share fact-checking messages that cheerlead their own candidate and denigrate the opposing party's candidate, resulting in an ideologically narrow flow of fact checks to their followers. We also find evidence of hostile media perception in users' public accusations of bias on the part of fact-checking organizations. Additionally, Republicans showed stronger outgroup negativity and hostility toward fact checkers than Democrats. These findings help us understand selective sharing as a complementary process to selective exposure, as well as identifying asymmetries between partisans in their sharing practices.},
author = {Shin, Jieun and Thorson, Kjerstin},
doi = {10.1111/jcom.12284},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Shin {\&} Thorson (2017).pdf:pdf},
isbn = {0021-9916},
issn = {14602466},
journal = {Journal of Communication},
keywords = {Election,Fact Checking,Hostile Media,Partisan,Selective Exposure,Selective Sharing,Social Identity,Social Media},
number = {2},
pages = {233--255},
title = {{Partisan Selective Sharing: The Biased Diffusion of Fact-Checking Messages on Social Media}},
volume = {67},
year = {2017}
}
@article{PennycookRand2018a,
author = {Pennycook, Gordon and Rand, David G},
doi = {10.1073/pnas.1806781116},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Pennycook {\&} Rand (2019).pdf:pdf},
journal = {PNAS},
title = {{Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality}},
year = {2018}
}
@article{Hollander2017,
author = {Hollander, Barry A.},
doi = {10.1177/1077699017728919},
issn = {1077-6990},
journal = {Journalism {\&} Mass Communication Quarterly},
keywords = {2001,2007,2014,conspiracy theories,conspiracy theories are woven,democracy,donovan,far more than intellec-,goldberg,into the very fabric,life,misperceptions,news exposure,of american social and,oliver,partisanship,political,wood},
pages = {107769901772891},
title = {{Partisanship, Individual Differences, and News Media Exposure as Predictors of Conspiracy Beliefs}},
url = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1077699017728919},
year = {2017}
}
@article{McCombsShaw1972,
author = {McCombs, Maxwell E. and Shaw, Donald L.},
doi = {10.1086/267990},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/McCombs, Shaw - 1972 - The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media.pdf:pdf},
journal = {The Public Opinion Quarterly},
number = {2},
pages = {176--187},
title = {{The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media}},
volume = {36},
year = {1972}
}
@article{Katzetal1973,
author = {Katz, Elihu and Haas, Hadassah and Gurevitch, Michael},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Katzetal1973.pdf:pdf},
journal = {American Sociological Review},
number = {2},
pages = {164--181},
title = {{On the Use of the Mass Media for Important Things}},
volume = {38},
year = {1973}
}
@article{Cohenetal2008,
abstract = {Much of what politicians do, we maintain in this paper, is driven by their belief in the power of media, which motivates their desire to be featured in news coverage. Our argument rests upon recent advances in communication theory, stressing “the influence on presumed media influence” (Gunther, Albert C., and J. Douglas Storey. 2003. “The Influence of Presumed Influence.” Journal of Communication 35(2):199-215) and contributes to our understanding of the mediatization of politics. Combined data from a survey of Israeli members of Knesset (MKs; n = 56), parliamentary reporters' (n = 20) rankings of MKs' media motivations, Knesset records of MKs' political activity, and data on the frequency of MKs' news appearances were used to test this argument. Structural equation modeling revealed that politicians' belief in the power of media increases their motivation and effort to appear in media coverage, which in turn is related both to greater media prominence and to more parliamentary activity. These results are discussed in light of their implications for both our understanding of political actors and the role of journalists.},
author = {Cohen, Jonathan and Tsfati, Yariv and Sheafer, Tamir},
doi = {10.1093/poq/nfn014},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Cohen et al. (2008).pdf:pdf},
isbn = {0033362X},
issn = {0033362X},
journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
number = {2},
pages = {331--344},
pmid = {32895165},
title = {{The influence of presumed media influence in politics: Do politicians' perceptions of media power matter?}},
volume = {72},
year = {2008}
}
@misc{Silverman2018,
author = {Silverman, Craig},
booktitle = {Nieman Lab},
title = {{Living in a sea of false signals: Are we being pushed from “trust, but verify” to “verify, then trust”?}},
year = {2018}
}
@techreport{Pew2018,
author = {{Pew Research Center}},
title = {{Americans Still Prefer Watching to Reading the News – And Mostly Still Through Television}},
year = {2018}
}
@incollection{Greenwald1968,
address = {New York, NY/London},
author = {Greenwald, Anthony G.},
booktitle = {Psychological Foundations of Attitudes},
doi = {10.1080/096020100389174},
editor = {Greenwald, Anthony G. and Brock, Timothy C. and Ostrom, Thomas M.},
isbn = {012300750X 9780123007506},
issn = {0960-2011},
pages = {147--170},
publisher = {Academic Press},
title = {{Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Persuasion, and Attitude Change}},
year = {1968}
}
@book{Sunstein2001,
author = {Sunstein, Cass R.},
keywords = {Deliberation,Democratic Theory,Internet,Polarization,Social Influence,Social Media},
mendeley-tags = {Deliberation,Democratic Theory,Internet,Polarization,Social Influence,Social Media},
publisher = {Princeton University Press},
title = {{Republic.com}},
year = {2001}
}
@incollection{Kahan2016a,
abstract = {Recent research in decision sciences identifies politically motivated reasoning as the source of persis-tent public conflict over policy-relevant facts. This paper presents a basic conceptual model—the " Politically Motivated Reasoning Paradigm " (PMRP)—that summarizes the salient features of this form of information processing. The experimental design best suited for studying hypotheses relating to PMRP, it argues, measures the weight that subjects attach to one and the same piece of evidence conditional on the manipulation of its perceived significance for positions associated with competing cultural or political values. The paper also discusses various additional methodological and substan-tive issues, including alternative schemes for operationalizing " motivating " political predispositions; the characteristics of valid samples for examining politically motivated reasoning; the rationality of po-litically motivated reasoning; the " symmetry " of this mechanism of cognition across opposing politi-cal or cultural group; the impact of offering monetary incentives for unbiased politically information processing; and the potential biasing impact of politically motivated reasoning on experts. The paper concludes by identifying the centrality of PMRP to the emerging science of science communication.},
address = {New York, NY},
author = {Kahan, Dan M.},
booktitle = {Emerging Trends in Social and Behavioral Sciences},
doi = {10.1002/9781118900772},
editor = {Scott, Robert and Kosslyn, Stephen},
isbn = {9781118900772},
publisher = {John Wiley {\&} Sons},
title = {{The politically motivated reasoning paradigm, Part 1: What Politically Motivated Reasoning Is and How to Measure It}},
year = {2016}
}
@article{Crawfordetal2013,
abstract = {This study tested the dual-process motivational (DPM) model, which posits that right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) differentially predict attitudes toward socially threatening or subordinate groups, respectively. Participants read articles on same-sex relationships and affirmative action and evaluated the article content and the biases of the article authors. The article conclusions (i.e., pro- or anti-same-sex relationships and affirmative action) were varied between subjects. As expected, only RWA predicted evaluations of the same-sex relationships articles and authors, whereas only SDO predicted evaluations of the affirmative action articles and authors. These results extend applications of the dual-process model by demonstrating that RWA and SDO differentially predict evaluations of political information that pertains to socially threatening or subordinate groups, respectively. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved)(journal abstract)},
author = {Crawford, Jarret T. and Jussim, Lee and Cain, Thomas R. and Cohen, Florette},
doi = {10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00990.x},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Crawford et al. (2013).pdf:pdf},
isbn = {0022-3115},
issn = {00219029},
journal = {Journal of Applied Social Psychology},
number = {1},
pages = {163--174},
title = {{Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation differentially predict biased evaluations of media reports}},
volume = {43},
year = {2013}
}
@article{Bradyetal2017,
abstract = {Political debate concerning moralized issues is increasingly common in online social networks. However, moral psychology has yet to incorporate the study of social networks to investigate processes by which some moral ideas spread more rapidly or broadly than others. Here, we show that the expression of moral emotion is key for the spread of moral and political ideas in online social networks, a process we call "moral contagion." Using a large sample of social media communications about three polarizing moral/political issues (n = 563,312), we observed that the presence of moral-emotional words in messages increased their diffusion by a factor of 20{\%} for each additional word. Furthermore, we found that moral contagion was bounded by group membership; moral-emotional language increased diffusion more strongly within liberal and conservative networks, and less between them. Our results highlight the importance of emotion in the social transmission of moral ideas and also demonstrate the utility of social network methods for studying morality. These findings offer insights into how people are exposed to moral and political ideas through social networks, thus expanding models of social influence and group polarization as people become increasingly immersed in social media networks.},
author = {Brady, William J. and Wills, Julian A. and Jost, John T. and Tucker, Joshua A. and {Van Bavel}, Jay J.},
doi = {10.1073/pnas.1618923114},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Brady et al. (2017).pdf:pdf},
isbn = {0027-8424},
issn = {0027-8424},
journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
number = {28},
pmid = {28652356},
title = {{Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks}},
volume = {114},
year = {2017}
}
@book{OKeefe2016,
address = {Thousand Oaks, CA},
author = {O'Keefe, Daniel J.},
edition = {Third Edit},
publisher = {SAGE},
title = {{Persuasion: Theory and Research}},
year = {2016}
}
@article{OeldorfDeVoss2019,
abstract = {With social media platforms becoming primary news sources, concerns about credibility judgments and knowledge grow. This study (N = 233) experimentally tests the effects of multiple source cues on Facebook news posts on credibility and knowledge. Judgments of story credibility were directly influenced by media source cues, but not friend source cues. Involvement in the source topic moderated the effects of these source cues, such that particular combinations influenced credibility differently, and also influenced cognitive elaboration about the topic. Theoretical implications for cognitive mediation model of learning from the news and the heuristic-systematic model of information processing are presented.},
author = {Oeldorf-Hirsch, Anne and DeVoss, Christina L.},
doi = {10.1177/1077699019857673},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Downloads/OeldorfDeVoss2019.pdf:pdf},
issn = {2161430X},
journal = {Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly},
keywords = {information processing,online news,social media,source cues},
title = {{Who Posted That Story? Processing Layered Sources in Facebook News Posts}},
year = {2019}
}
@article{Pettyetal1981,
abstract = {It was suggested that there are two basic routes to persuasion. One route is based on the thoughtful consideration of arguments central to the issue, whereas the other is based on peripheral cues in the persuasion situation. To test this view, undergraduates expressed their attitudes on an issue after exposure to a coun-terattitudinal advocacy containing either strong or weak arguments that ema-nated from a source of either high or low expertise. For some subjects, the communication was high in personal relevance, whereas for others it was low. Interactions of the personal relevance manipulation with the argument quality and expertise manipulations revealed that under high relevance, attitudes were influenced primarily by the quality of the arguments in the message, whereas under low relevance, attitudes were influenced primarily by the expertise of the source. This suggests that the personal relevance of an issue is one determinant of the route to persuasion that will be followed. In a recent review of the numerous ap-proaches to attitude change that have de-veloped over the past 35 years, Petty and Cacioppo (1981) suggested that these many approaches could be seen as proposing two distinct routes to persuasion. One, called the central route, views attitude change as re-sulting from a diligent consideration of issue-relevant arguments. The approaches that fall under this route have emphasized such fac-tors as the comprehension, learning, and re-tention of message arguments (e.g., Eagly, 1974; McGuire, 1968; Miller {\&} Campbell, 1959); the self-generation of arguments (e.g., The data reported here are based in part on a master's thesis conducted by the third author under the super-vision of the first two authors. The advice of thesis com-mittee members Russell Geen, Donald Granberg, and Larry Siegel is acknowledged with thanks.},
author = {Petty, Richard E. and Cacioppo, John T. and Goldman, Rachel},
doi = {10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.847},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Petty et al. (1981).pdf:pdf},
isbn = {00223514},
issn = {00223514},
journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
keywords = {attitude change,college students,personal relevance {\&} quality of arguments {\&} source},
number = {5},
pages = {847--855},
pmid = {4520},
title = {{Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion}},
volume = {41},
year = {1981}
}
@article{Williams2012,
abstract = {This article establishes the theoretical significance of media trust and explores the relationships between individuals' levels ofmedia trust and news attention. Three distinct types ofmedia trust are introduced: 1) trust of news information, 2) trust of those who deliver the news, and 3) trust of media corporations. The findings indicate that these different types of media trust relate to news attention in distinct ways, specifically when examined across medium. The theoretical significance of the findings are discussed and contextualized in light of an evolving media environment.},
author = {Williams, Ann E},
doi = {10.1080/08838151.2011.651186},
issn = {0883-8151},
journal = {Journal of Broadcasting {\&} Electronic Media},
keywords = {Attention,Media Trust,Theoretical},
mendeley-tags = {Attention,Media Trust,Theoretical},
number = {1},
pages = {116--131},
title = {{Trust or Bust?: Questioning the Relationship Between Media Trust and News Attention}},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2011.651186{\%}255Cnhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08838151.2011.651186},
volume = {56},
year = {2012}
}
@article{Sunstein2007,
abstract = {JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . Columbia Law Review Association, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Columbia Law Review.},
author = {Sunstein, Cass R.},
doi = {10.2307/40041705},
isbn = {0010-1958},
issn = {00101958},
journal = {Columbia Law Review},
number = {2},
pages = {503--557},
title = {{On the divergent American reactions to terrorism and climate change}},
volume = {107},
year = {2007}
}
@article{Viviani2017,
author = {Viviani, Marco and Pasi, Gabriella},
doi = {10.1002/widm.1209},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Viviani, Pasi - 2017 - Credibility in social media opinions, news, and health information-a survey.pdf:pdf;:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Viviani, Pasi - 2017 - Credibility in social media opinions, news, and health information-a survey.docx:docx},
issn = {19424787},
journal = {Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery},
keywords = {Algorithms,Credibility,Social Media},
mendeley-tags = {Algorithms,Credibility,Social Media},
month = {jun},
publisher = {Wiley Periodicals, Inc},
title = {{Credibility in social media: opinions, news, and health information-a survey}},
url = {http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/widm.1209},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Entman1993,
author = {Entman, Robert M},
doi = {10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x},
journal = {Journal of Communication 43(4),},
number = {4},
pages = {51--58},
title = {{Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm}},
volume = {43},
year = {1993}
}
@book{Lippmann1922,
address = {Mansfield Centre, CT},
author = {Lippmann, Walter},
publisher = {Martino Publishing},
title = {{Public Opinion}},
year = {1922}
}
@article{BaumGroeling2009,
abstract = {Research has shown that messages of intra-party harmony tend to be ignored by the news media, while internal disputes, especially within the governing party, generally receive prominent coverage. We examine how messages of party conflict and cooperation affect public opinion regarding national security, as well as whether and how the reputations of media outlets matter. We develop a typology of partisan messages in the news, determining their likely effects based on the char- acteristics of the speaker, listener, news outlet, and message content. We hypothesize that criticism of a Republican president by his fellow partisan elites should be exceptionally damaging (especially on a conservative media outlet), while opposition party praise of the president should be the most helpful (especially on a liberal outlet). We test our hypotheses through an experiment and a national survey on attitudes regarding the Iraq War. The results show that credible communication (i.e., "costly" rhetoric harmful to a party) is more influential than "cheap talk" in moving public opinion. Ironically, news media outlets perceived as ideologically hostile can actually enhance the credibility of certain messages relative to "friendly" news sourc},
author = {Baum, Matthew A. and Groeling, Tim},
doi = {10.1007/s11109-008-9074-9},
eprint = {arXiv:1011.1669v3},
isbn = {1626008914},
issn = {13100351},
journal = {Political Behavior},
number = {2},
pages = {157--186},
pmid = {15974422},
title = {{Partisan Cues and Public Opinion regarding National Security and War}},
volume = {31},
year = {2009}
}
@techreport{KnightGallup2018,
address = {Washington, D.C.},
author = {{Knight Foundation/Gallup}},
institution = {Knight Foundation/Gallup},
title = {{Perceived Accuracy and Bias in the Media}},
year = {2018}
}
@misc{Silverman2016,
author = {Silverman, Craig},
booktitle = {Buzzfeed},
month = {nov},
title = {{This Analysis Shows How Viral Fake Election News Stories Outperformed Real News On Facebook}},
url = {https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook?utm{\_}term=.yfjj1x7MK{\#}.viWMqorGd},
year = {2016}
}
@article{DiedenhofenMusch2017,
abstract = {Cheating threatens the validity of unproctored online achievement tests. To address this problem, we developed PageFocus, a JavaScript that detects when participants abandon test pages by switching to another window or browser tab. In a first study, we aimed at testing whether PageFocus could detect and prevent cheating. We asked 115 lab and 186 online participants to complete a knowledge test comprising items that were difficult to answer but easy to look up on the Internet. Half of the participants were invited to look up the solutions, which significantly increased their test scores. The PageFocus script detected test takers who abandoned the test page with very high sensitivity and specificity, and successfully reduced cheating by generating a popup message that asked participants not to cheat. In a second study, 510 online participants completed a knowledge test comprising items that could easily be looked up and a reasoning task involving matrices that were impossible to look up. In a first group, a performance-related monetary reward was promised to the top scorers; in a second group, participants took part in a lottery that provided performance-unrelated rewards; and in a third group, no incentive was offered. PageFocus revealed that participants cheated more when performance-related incentives were offered. As expected, however, this effect was limited to items that could easily be looked up. We recommend that PageFocus be routinely employed to detect and prevent cheating on online achievement tests. {\textcopyright} 2016 Psychonomic Society, Inc.},
author = {Diedenhofen, Birk and Musch, Jochen},
doi = {10.3758/s13428-016-0800-7},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/DiedenhofenMusch2017.pdf:pdf},
issn = {15543528},
journal = {Behavior Research Methods},
keywords = {Achievement tests,Cheating detection,Data quality,JavaScript,Paradata,Unproctored online testing},
number = {4},
pages = {1444--1459},
publisher = {Behavior Research Methods},
title = {{PageFocus: Using paradata to detect and prevent cheating on online achievement tests}},
volume = {49},
year = {2017}
}
@book{Wu2016,
author = {Wu, Tim},
keywords = {Persuasion,Social Influence,Social Media},
mendeley-tags = {Persuasion,Social Influence,Social Media},
publisher = {Knopf},
title = {{The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads}},
year = {2016}
}
@article{Tandoc2017a,
author = {Tandoc, Edson C. and Lim, Zheng Wei and Richard, Ling},
journal = {Digital Journalism},
title = {{Defining “Fake News”}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Hill2017,
author = {Hill, Seth J.},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Hill - 2016 - Learning Together Slowly Bayesian Updating About Political Facts.pdf:pdf},
journal = {The Journal of Politics},
keywords = {Bayesian Learning,Experiment,Formal Modelling,Information,Motivated reasoning,bayesian learning,crossover,motivated reasoning,perceptual bias,political information},
mendeley-tags = {Bayesian Learning,Experiment,Formal Modelling,Information,Motivated reasoning},
number = {4},
pages = {1403--1418},
title = {{Learning Together Slowly: Bayesian Updating About Political Facts}},
volume = {79},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Kuruetal2017,
abstract = {How do citizens' motivations shape their perceptions of poll reports? Increasingly, scholars are finding that citizens engage in motivated reasoning, whereby they discredit information that differs from their preexisting attitudes. The perceived credibility of opinion polls might be prone to similar motivational processes, as individuals could discount results suggesting that they hold minority opinions. We assess whether motivated reasoning influences the credibility of poll results and whether features of the presentation of those results might moderate and potentially counteract these motivational processes. In an online survey experiment conducted with a national sample of American adults (N = 1,211), respondents were exposed to poll reports about both gun control and abortion and were asked to rate the credibility of these polls. For each report, three aspects of presentation were randomized: the direction of the poll result (majority supports/opposes), the news source reporting the poll (FoxNews/MSNBC), and the amount of methodological detail reported (none/a lot). In line with theories of motivated reasoning, respondents who held issue positions that contradicted the results of the polls found those polls less credible. Further, this decreased credibility was particularly evident among individuals with high levels of political knowledge. Source credibility cues—such as the ideological alignment of source and respondent and the presence of a message from an unexpected source—did not moderate this relationship and were unrelated to poll credibility. However, evidence suggests that methodological disclosure could moderate the motivational biases in credibility assessments.},
author = {Kuru, Ozan and Pasek, Josh and Traugott, Michael W.},
doi = {10.1093/poq/nfx018},
isbn = {0033-362X},
issn = {15375331},
journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
number = {2},
pages = {422--446},
title = {{Motivated reasoning in the perceived credibility of public opinion polls}},
volume = {81},
year = {2017}
}
@techreport{Levyetal2017,
author = {Levy, David A. L. and Newman, Nic and Fletcher, Richard and Kalogeropoulos, Antonis and Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis},
title = {{Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2017}},
url = {https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Digital News Report 2017 web{\_}0.pdf},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Waddell2019,
author = {Waddell, T Franklin},
doi = {10.1177/1077699018815891},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Waddell (2019).pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1077699018},
keywords = {computational journalism,main model,media bias,message credibility,similarity},
title = {{Can an Algorithm Reduce the Perceived Bias of News? Testing the Effect of Machine Attribution on News Readers' Evaluations of Bias, Anthropomorphism, and Credibility}},
year = {2019}
}
@article{BavelPereira2018,
author = {Bavel, Jay J. Van and Pereira, Andrea},
journal = {Trends in Cognitive Sciences},
number = {3},
title = {{The partisan brain: An Identity-based model of political belief}},
volume = {22},
year = {2018}
}
@article{Jankowskietal2016,
abstract = {This study applies black box scaling to the German Longitudinal Election Study candidate survey 2013 to shed light on an emerging right-wing party in Germany, the Alternative f{\"{u}}r Deutschland (AfD). The scaling procedure extracts two meaningful and robust ideological dimensions described as socialism versus liberalism and libertarian versus authoritarian. Placing the ideal point of candidates from all parties into this two-dimensional space shows that AfD candidates are significantly more market liberal than Christian Democratic Union candidates but not more authoritarian. On these grounds, the AfD can hardly be regarded as a right-wing extremist party. Yet exploring ideological heterogeneity within parties indicates that East German AfD candidates are generally more authoritarian than their West German colleagues, highlighting a potential source of the party's recent shift from primarily Eurosceptic toward more nationalist conservative positions.},
author = {Jankowski, Michael and Schneider, Sebastian and Tepe, Markus},
doi = {10.1177/1354068815625230},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Jankowskietal2016.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1354068815625},
issn = {14603683},
journal = {Party Politics},
keywords = {AfD,black box scaling,candidate survey,ideology,intra-party heterogeneity},
number = {6},
pages = {704--716},
title = {{Ideological alternative? Analyzing Alternative f{\"{u}}r Deutschland candidates' ideal points via black box scaling}},
volume = {23},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Effron2018,
author = {Effron, Daniel A},
doi = {10.1177/0146167217746152},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Effron (2018).pdf:pdf},
keywords = {2017,clinton,counterfactual thinking,dishonesty,doubted that truth and,ethics,lies,morality,no one has ever,political psychology,politics are on rather,received april 14,revision accepted november 13,social judgment,trump},
title = {{It Could Have Been True: How Counterfactual Thoughts Reduce Condemnation of Falsehoods and Increase Political Polarization}},
year = {2018}
}
@article{vanAelstetal2017,
abstract = {During the last decennia media environments and political communication systems have changed fundamentally. These changes have major ramifications for the political information environments and the extent to which they aid people in becoming informed citizens. Against this background, the purpose of this article is to review research on key changes and trends in political information environments and assess their democratic implications. We will focus on advanced postindustrial democracies and six concerns that are all closely linked to the dissemination and acquisition of political knowledge: (1) declining supply of political information, (2) declining quality of news, (3) increasing media concentration and declining diversity of news, (4) increasing fragmentation and polarization, (5) increasing relativism and (6) increasing inequality in political knowledge.},
author = {{Van Aelst}, Peter and Str{\"{o}}mb{\"{a}}ck, Jesper and Aalberg, Toril and Esser, Frank and de Vreese, Claes and Matthes, J{\"{o}}rg and Hopmann, David and Salgado, Susana and Hub{\'{e}}, Nicolas and St{\c{e}}pi{\'{n}}ska, Agnieszka and Papathanassopoulos, Stylianos and Berganza, Rosa and Legnante, Guido and Reinemann, Carsten and Sheafer, Tamir and Stanyer, James},
doi = {10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551},
isbn = {2380-8985},
issn = {2380-8985},
journal = {Annals of the International Communication Association},
number = {1},
pages = {3--27},
publisher = {Taylor {\&} Francis},
title = {{Political communication in a high-choice media environment: a challenge for democracy?}},
volume = {41},
year = {2017}
}
@book{HochschildEinstein2015,
abstract = {A democracy falters when most of its citizens are uninformed or misinformed, when misinformation affects political decisions and actions, or when political actors foment misinformation—the state of affairs the United States faces today, as this timely book makes painfully clear. In Do Facts Matter? Jennifer L. Hochschild and Katherine Levine Einstein start with Thomas Jefferson's ideal citizen, who knows and uses correct information to make policy or political choices. What, then, the authors ask, are the consequences if citizens are informed but do not act on their knowledge? More serious, what if they do act, but on incorrect information? Analyzing the use, nonuse, and misuse of facts in various cases—such as the call to impeach Bill Clinton, the response to global warming, Clarence Thomas's appointment to the Supreme Court, the case for invading Iraq, beliefs about Barack Obama's birthplace and religion, and the Affordable Care Act—Hochschild and Einstein argue persuasively that errors of commission (that is, acting on falsehoods) are even more troublesome than errors of omission. While citizens' inability or unwillingness to use the facts they know in their political decision making may be frustrating, their acquisition and use of incorrect “knowledge” pose a far greater threat to a democratic political system.Do Facts Matter? looks beyond individual citizens to the role that political elites play in informing, misinforming, and encouraging or discouraging the use of accurate or mistaken information or beliefs. Hochschild and Einstein show that if a well-informed electorate remains a crucial component of a successful democracy, the deliberate concealment of political facts poses its greatest threat.},
author = {Hochschild, Jennifer L. and Einstein, Katherine Levine},
booktitle = {Political Science Quarterly},
doi = {10.1002/polq.12398},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Hochschild, Einstein - 2015 - Do Facts Matter Information and Misinformation in American Politics.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {9780806146867},
issn = {1538165X},
keywords = {Information,Knowledge,Misbeliefs,Observational},
mendeley-tags = {Information,Knowledge,Misbeliefs,Observational},
number = {4},
pages = {585--624},
title = {{Do Facts Matter? Information and Misinformation in American Politics}},
volume = {130},
year = {2015}
}
@article{Mulder1983,
author = {Mulder, Ronald},
isbn = {2213-8595 2213-8587},
journal = {Journal of Consumer Research},
keywords = {Media Scepticism,Media Trust,Observational,Source Credibility,Survey},
mendeley-tags = {Media Scepticism,Media Trust,Observational,Source Credibility,Survey},
number = {September},
title = {{Media Credibility: A Use-Gratification Approach}},
volume = {10},
year = {1983}
}
@article{Turcotte2015,
abstract = {Polls show a strong decline in public trust of traditional news outlets; however, social media offers new avenues for receiving news content. This experiment used the Facebook API to manipulate whether a news story appeared to have been posted on Facebook by one of the respondent's real-life Facebook friends. Results show that social media recommendations improve levels of media trust, and also make people want to follow more news from that particular media outlet in the future. Moreover, these effects are amplified when the real-life friend sharing the story on social media is perceived as an opinion leader. Implications for democracy and the news business are discussed.},
author = {Turcotte, Jason and York, Chance and Irving, Jacob and Scholl, Rosanne M. and Pingree, Raymond J.},
doi = {10.1111/jcc4.12127},
isbn = {1083-6101},
issn = {10836101},
journal = {Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication},
keywords = {Experiment,Facebook,Graph API,Interpersonal communication,Media trust,News media effects,Opinion leader,Social media,Two-step flow},
mendeley-tags = {Experiment,Facebook,Graph API,Media trust,News media effects,Opinion leader,Social media,Two-step flow},
number = {5},
pages = {520--535},
pmid = {1519417997},
title = {{News Recommendations from Social Media Opinion Leaders: Effects on Media Trust and Information Seeking}},
volume = {20},
year = {2015}
}
@article{Druckman2014,
author = {Druckman, James N},
doi = {10.1080/10584609.2013.852643},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Druckman - 2014 - Pathologies of Studying Public Opinion, Political Communication, and Democratic Responsiveness.pdf:pdf},
issn = {1058-4609},
journal = {Political Communication},
keywords = {Democratic Theory,Motivated reasoning,Opinions,Public Opinion,Values},
mendeley-tags = {Democratic Theory,Motivated reasoning,Opinions,Public Opinion,Values},
number = {3},
pages = {467--492},
publisher = {Routledge},
title = {{Pathologies of Studying Public Opinion, Political Communication, and Democratic Responsiveness}},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2013.852643},
volume = {31},
year = {2014}
}
@article{Munro2002,
author = {Munro, Geoffrey D. and Ditto, Peter H. and Lockhart, Lisa K. and Fagerlin, Angela and Gready, Mitchell and Peterson, Elizabeth},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Munro et al. (2002).pdf:pdf},
journal = {Basic and Applied Social Psychology ISSN:},
title = {{Biased Assimilation of Sociopolitical Arguments: Evaluating the 1996 U.S. Presidential Debate}},
year = {2002}
}
@article{Junetal2017,
author = {Jun, Youjung and Meng, Rachel and Johar, Gita Venkataramani},
doi = {10.1073/pnas.1700175114},
isbn = {1700175114},
issn = {0027-8424},
journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
number = {23},
pages = {201700175},
pmid = {28533396},
title = {{Perceived social presence reduces fact-checking}},
url = {http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1700175114},
volume = {114},
year = {2017}
}
@techreport{Rainie2017,
author = {Rainie, B Y Lee and Anderson, Janna and Albright, Jonathan},
institution = {Pew Research Center},
keywords = {Fake News},
mendeley-tags = {Fake News},
number = {March},
title = {{The Future of Free Speech, Trolls, Anonymity and Fake News Online}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{MacCounPaletz2009,
author = {MacCoun, Rob and Paletz, Susannah},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/McCoun {\&} Paletz (2009).pdf:pdf},
journal = {Political Psychology},
keywords = {a complex mix of,and empirical uncertainties,belief updating,biased judgment,bring about,but it is rare,clarifying the empirical issues,controversial policy disputes involve,for empirical research to,ideological conflicts,ideology,inform these debates by,partisanship,public opinion,social scientists seek to},
number = {1},
pages = {43--65},
title = {{Citizens' Perceptions of Ideological Bias in Policy Research}},
volume = {30},
year = {2009}
}
@article{HarmonConey1982,
author = {Harmon, Robert R and Coney, Kenneth A},
doi = {10.2307/3151625},
journal = {Journal of Marketing Research},
number = {2},
pages = {255--260},
title = {{The Persuasive Effects of Source Credibility in Buy and Lease Situations}},
volume = {19},
year = {1982}
}
@article{Chen2017,
abstract = {This study draws on an experiment combined with Web behavior-tracking data to understand the roles of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, including personal issue importance and motivated-reasoning goals, in influencing people to seek pro- and counterattitudinal information and how this information selectivity in turn affects elaborative reasoning. Findings suggest that proattitudinal exposure mediates the re- lationship between personal issue importance and generating rationales for one's own viewpoint on the issue, while counterattitudinal exposure mediates the path from personal issue importance to generating rationales for not only oppositional but also one's own viewpoint. This result highlights the significant role of counterattitudinal exposure in enhancing deliberative democracy. However, the moderated mediation analyses further indicate that the indirect paths through counterattitudinal exposure only occur for those who are highly motivated by accuracy goals to search for infor- mation. Implications for the functioning of deliberative democracy are discussed.},
author = {Chen, Hsuan-Ting},
doi = {10.1093/ijpor/edx016},
issn = {0954-2892},
journal = {International Journal of Public Opinion Research},
number = {October},
title = {{Personal Issue Importance and Motivated-Reasoning Goals for Pro- and Counterattitudinal Exposure: A Moderated Mediation Model of Motivations and Information Selectivity on Elaborative Reasoning}},
url = {http://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/doi/10.1093/ijpor/edx016/4191360/Personal-Issue-Importance-and-MotivatedReasoning},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Wagner2017,
abstract = {Two studies assessed the extent to which people incorporated false facts provided by bogus others into their own recognition memory reports, and how these false memory reports were affected by: (a) truth of the information in others' summaries supporting the false facts, (b) motivation to process stories and summaries, (c) source credibility, and (d) ease of remembering original facts. False memory report frequency increased when false facts in a summary were supported by true information and varied inversely with the ease with which original facts could be remembered. Results from a measure probing participants' memory perceptions suggest that some false memories are authentic: People sometimes lack awareness of both the incorporation of false facts into their memory reports and where the false facts came from. However, many false memories are inauthentic: Despite reporting a false memory, people sometimes retain knowledge of the original stimulus and/or the origin of false facts.},
author = {Wagner, Michael F and Skowronski, John J},
doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2017.02.017},
issn = {1053-8100},
journal = {Consciousness and Cognition},
keywords = {False memory,Informational social influence,Memory routes,Misinformation effect,Normative social influence,experiment,false memory,informational social influence,memory,memory routes,misinformation,misinformation effect,normative social influence,source credibility},
mendeley-tags = {experiment,false memory,informational social influence,memory,memory routes,misinformation,misinformation effect,normative social influence,source credibility},
pages = {34--52},
title = {{Social influence and mental routes to the production of authentic false memories and inauthentic false memories}},
url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810017300880},
volume = {51},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Unkelbach2018,
abstract = {Processing fluency, the experienced ease of ongoing mental operations, influences judgments such as frequency, monetary value, or truth. Most experiments keep to-be-judged stimuli ambiguous with regards to these judgment dimensions. In real life, however, people usually have declarative information about these stimuli beyond the experiential processing information. Here, we address how experiential fluency information may inform truth judgments in the presence of declarative advice information. Four experiments show that fluency influences judged truth even when advice about the statements' truth is continuously available and labelled as highly valid; the influence follows a linear cue integration pattern for two orthogonal cues (i.e., experiential and declarative information). These data underline the importance of processing fluency as an explanatory construct in real-life judgements and support a cue integration framework to understand fluency effects in judgment and decision making.},
author = {Unkelbach, Christian and Greifeneder, Rainer},
doi = {10.1016/j.jesp.2018.06.010},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/UnkelbachalGreifeneder2018.pdf:pdf},
issn = {10960465},
journal = {Journal of Experimental Social Psychology},
number = {June},
pages = {78--86},
publisher = {Elsevier},
title = {{Experiential fluency and declarative advice jointly inform judgments of truth}},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.06.010},
volume = {79},
year = {2018}
}
@misc{MediaInsight2017b,
abstract = {Published 5/24/17},
author = {{American Press Institute}},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Media Insight (2017b).pdf:pdf},
title = {{'My' media versus 'the' media: Trust in news depends on which news media you mean}},
url = {https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/my-media-vs-the-media/},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Prioretal2015,
abstract = {When surveyed about economic conditions, supporters of the president's party often report more positive conditions than its opponents. Scholars have interpreted this finding to mean that partisans cannot even agree on matters of fact. We test an alternative interpretation: Partisans give partisan congenial answers even when they have, or could have inferred, information less flattering to the party they identify with. To test this hypothesis, we administered two surveys to nationally representative samples, experimentally manipulating respondents' motivation to be accurate via monetary incentives and on-screen appeals. Both treat- ments reduced partisan differences in reports of economic conditions significantly. Many partisans interpret factual questions about economic conditions as opinion questions, unless motivated to see them otherwise. Typical survey conditions thus reveal a mix of what partisans know about the economy, and what they would like to be true.},
author = {Prior, Markus and Sood, Gaurav and Khanna, Kabir},
doi = {10.1561/100.00014127},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Prioretal2015.pdf:pdf},
journal = {Quarterly Journal of Political Science},
number = {4},
pages = {489--518},
title = {{You Cannot be Serious: The Impact of Accuracy Incentives on Partisan Bias in Reports of Economic Perceptions}},
volume = {10},
year = {2015}
}
@article{Decheneetal2010,
abstract = {Repetition has been shown to increase subjective truth ratings of trivia statements. This truth effect can be measured in two ways: (a) as the increase in subjective truth from the first to the second encounter (within-items criterion) and (b) as the difference in truth ratings between repeated and other new statements (between-items criterion). Qualitative differences are assumed between the processes underlying both criteria. A meta-analysis of the truth effect was conducted that compared the two criteria. In all, 51 studies of the repetition-induced truth effect were included in the analysis. Results indicate that the between-items effect is larger than the within-items effect. Moderator analyses reveal that several moderators affect both effects differentially. This lends support to the notion that different psychological comparison processes may underlie the two effects. The results are discussed within the processign fluency account of the truth effect.},
author = {Dech{\^{e}}ne, Alice and Stahl, Christoph and Hansen, Jochim and W{\"{a}}nke, Michaela},
doi = {10.1177/1088868309352251},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Dechene et al. (2010).pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1088-8683$\backslash$n1532-7957},
issn = {10888683},
journal = {Personality and Social Psychology Review},
keywords = {Meta-analysis,Processing fluency,Truth effect},
number = {2},
pages = {238--257},
pmid = {20023210},
title = {{The truth about the truth: A meta-analytic review of the truth effect}},
volume = {14},
year = {2010}
}
@misc{Chen1999,
abstract = {Our thinking and research on motivated cognition is theoretically grounded in the heuristic-systematic model (e.g., Chaiken, 1980, 1987; Chaiken et al., 1989). This model is one of a growing family of dual-process theories in social psychology, each of which argues, in some manner, that social judgments can be formed on the basis of more and less thought- ful cognition (e.g., Chen {\&} Chaiken, 1999; Fiske {\&} Neuberg, 1990; Petty {\&} Cacioppo, 1986; for a review, see Chaiken {\&} Trope, 1999). The heuristic-system- atic model's dual-process framework proposes two basic modes of processing by which social judgments can be made-the heuristic and systematic modes of processing.},
author = {Chen, Serena and Duckworth, Kimberly and Chaiken, Shelly},
booktitle = {Psychological Inquiry},
doi = {10.1207/s15327965pli1001_6},
isbn = {1047840X},
issn = {1047-840X},
number = {1},
pages = {44--49},
pmid = {10383},
title = {{Motivated Heuristic and Systematic Processing}},
volume = {10},
year = {1999}
}
@techreport{Bundeszentrale2012,
author = {{Bundeszentrale f{\"{u}}r Politische Bildung}},
title = {{Bev{\"{o}}lkerung nach L{\"{a}}ndern}},
url = {http://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/zahlen-und-fakten/soziale-situation-in-deutschland/61535/bevoelkerung-nach-laendern},
year = {2012}
}
@techreport{ChadwickVaccari2019,
author = {Chadwick, Andrew and Vaccari, Cristian},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Chadwick {\&} Vaccari (2019).pdf:pdf},
title = {{News sharing on UK social media: Misinformation, disinformation, and correction}},
url = {https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/37720 Version:},
year = {2019}
}
@techreport{Saengerlaub2017a,
author = {S{\"{a}}ngerlaub, Alexander},
institution = {Stiftung Neue Verantwortung},
title = {{Deutschland vor der Bundestagswahl: {\"{U}}berall Fake News?!}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Schwarzetal2016,
abstract = {Erroneous beliefs are difficult to correct. Worse, popular correction strategies, such as the myth-versus-fact article format, may backfire because they subtly reinforce the myths through repetition and further increase the spread and acceptance of misinformation. Here we identify five key criteria people employ as they evaluate the truth of a statement: They assess general acceptance by others, gauge the amount of supporting evidence, determine its compatibility with their beliefs, assess the general coherence of the statement, and judge the credibility of the source of the information. In assessing these five criteria, people can actively seek additional information (an effortful analytic strategy) or attend to the subjective experience of easy mental processing-what psychologists call fluent processing-and simply draw conclusions on the basis of what feels right (a less effortful intuitive strategy). Throughout this truth-evaluation effort, fluent processing can facilitate acceptance of the statement: When thoughts flow smoothly, people nod along. Unfortunately, many correction strategies inadvertently make the false information more easily acceptable by... review abstract. Erroneous beliefs are difficult to correct. Worse, popular correction strategies, such as the myth-versus-fact article format, may backfire because they subtly reinforce the myths through repetition and further increase the spread and acceptance of misinformation. Here we identify five key criteria people employ as they evaluate the truth of a statement: They assess general acceptance by others, gauge the amount of supporting evidence, determine its compatibility with their beliefs, assess the general coherence of the statement, and judge the credibility of the source of the information. In assessing these five criteria, people can actively seek additional information (an effortful analytic strategy) or attend to the subjective experience of easy mental processing-what psychologists call fluent processing-and simply draw conclusions on the basis of what feels right (a less effortful intuitive strategy). Throughout this truth-evaluation effort, fluent processing can facilitate acceptance of the statement: When thoughts flow smoothly, people nod along. Unfortunately, many correction strategies inadvertently make the false information more easily acceptable by, for example, repeating it or illustrating it with anecdotes and pictures. This, ironically, increases the likelihood that the false information the communicator wanted to debunk will be believed later. A more promising correction strategy is to focus on making the true information as easy to process as possible. We review recent research and offer recommendations for more effective presentation and correction strategies.},
author = {Schwarz, Norbert and Newman, Eryn and Leach, William},
doi = {10.1353/bsp.2016.0009},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Schwarz et al. (2016).pdf:pdf},
issn = {2379-4615},
journal = {Behavioral Science {\&} Policy},
number = {1},
pages = {85--95},
title = {{Making the truth stick {\&} the myths fade: Lessons from cognitive psychology}},
volume = {2},
year = {2016}
}
@article{SchaffnerRocher2017,
abstract = {Public opinion scholars have recently focused on under- standing why surveys report such high levels of misinformation among otherwise knowledgeable and engaged partisans. In this paper, we take advantage of a natural experiment involving the October 2012 jobs report announcement to gain a more complete understanding of how individu- als' beliefs are influenced by new salient information in a politicized environment. We examine reactions by Republicans and Democrats on a factual question about the unemployment rate immediately before and after the announcement that unemployment had fallen below 8 percent for the first time during the Obama presidency. Using a variety of tech- niques, including response latency measures, we conclude that partisans did react to the jobs report by engaging in motivated reasoning, provid- ing a clearer understanding of why individuals respond to factual ques- tions in vastly different ways.},
author = {Schaffner, Brian F. and Roche, Cameron},
doi = {10.1093/poq/nfw043},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Schaffner {\&} Rocher (2017).pdf:pdf},
issn = {15375331},
journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
number = {1},
title = {{Misinformation and motivated reasoning: Responses to economic news in a politicized environment}},
volume = {81},
year = {2017}
}
@techreport{Bounegru2017,
author = {Bounegru, Liliana and Gray, Jonathan and Venturini, Tommaso and Mauri, Michele},
title = {{A Field Guide to Fake News}},
year = {2017}
}
@techreport{Fausetal2018,
author = {Faus, Jana and Knaup, Horand and R{\"{u}}ter, Michael and Schroth, Yvonne and Stauss, Frank},
title = {{Aus Fehlern Lernen. Eine Analyse der Bundestagswahl 2017}},
url = {https://www.spd.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/Sonstiges/Evaluierung{\_}SPD{\_}{\_}BTW2017.pdf},
year = {2018}
}
@article{Hopkinsetal2019,
abstract = {Previous research shows that people commonly exaggerate the size of minority populations. Moreover, as theories of inter-group threat would predict, the larger people perceive minority groups to be, the less favorably they feel toward these groups. Here, we investigate whether correcting Americans' misperceptions of one such population -- immigrants -- affects attitudes toward this group. We confirm that non-Hispanic Americans over-estimate the percentage of the population that is foreign-born or that is in the U.S. without authorization. However, in four separate survey experiments, we find that providing accurate information does little to affect attitudes toward immigration. This is true even when people's misperceptions are explicitly corrected. These results call into question a potential cognitive mechanism that could underpin inter-group threat theory. Misperceptions of the size of minority groups may be a consequence, rather than cause, of attitudes toward those groups.},
author = {Hopkins, Daniel J. and Sides, John and Citrin, Jack},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Hopkins, Sides, Citrin - 2016 - The Muted Consequences of Correct Information About Immigration.pdf:pdf},
journal = {The Journal of Politics},
keywords = {Correction,Information,Misbelief,Motivated reasoning,Survey experiment,Syllogistic Reasoning},
mendeley-tags = {Correction,Information,Misbelief,Motivated reasoning,Survey experiment,Syllogistic Reasoning},
number = {1},
pages = {315--320},
title = {{The Muted Consequences of Correct Information About Immigration}},
volume = {81},
year = {2019}
}
@unpublished{Rossetal2019,
author = {Ross, Robert M. and Rand, David G. and Pennycook, Gordon},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Rossetal2019.pdf:pdf},
title = {{Beyond “fake news”: The role of analytic thinking in the detection of inaccuracy and partisan bias in news headlines Robert}},
year = {2019}
}
@article{ClarkMaass1988,
author = {Clark, Russell D. III and Maass, Anne},
doi = {10.1002/ejsp.2420180502},
journal = {European Journal of Social Psychology},
number = {5},
pages = {381--394},
title = {{The role of social categorization and perceived source credibility in minority influence}},
volume = {18},
year = {1988}
}
@article{SlothuusVreese2010,
abstract = {Issue framing is one of the most important means of elite influence on public opinion. However, we know almost nothing about how citizens respond to frames in what is possibly the most common situation in politics: when frames are sponsored by political parties. Linking theory on motivated reasoning with framing research, we argue not only that citizens should be more likely to follow a frame if it is promoted by "their" party; we expect such biases to be more pronounced on issues at the center of party conflicts and among the more politically aware. Two experiments embedded in a nationally representative survey support these arguments. Our findings revise current knowledge on framing, parties, and public opinion.},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
arxivId = {0806.3286},
author = {Slothuus, Rune and de Vreese, Claes H.},
doi = {10.1017/S002238161000006X},
eprint = {0806.3286},
isbn = {0022-3816$\backslash$r1468-2508},
issn = {0022-3816},
journal = {The Journal of Politics},
keywords = {Framing,Motivated reasoning,Opinion leader,Pre-test,Survey experiment},
mendeley-tags = {Framing,Motivated reasoning,Opinion leader,Pre-test,Survey experiment},
number = {3},
pages = {630--645},
pmid = {6527215},
title = {{Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Issue Framing Effects}},
url = {http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1017/S002238161000006X},
volume = {72},
year = {2010}
}
@article{ABELSON1986,
abstract = {In this paper, I propose a theoretical perspective on the nature of beliefs, a perspective with many novel features. I want to argue that for most people, in many important cases, "beliefs are like possessions." I will begin by explaining briefly what led me to this argument, and then gradually detail the propositions composing the theoretical perspective. Finally, I will outline the psychological consequences of the proposed view. Along the way, I suggest several lines of research that might confirm, refute, or reshape it. The biew I will present has been incubated in my thinking for many years, spurred by two considerations: first, puzzlement over certain rather mysterious results in the literature on persuasion; and second, a reanalysis of the way people might acquire and exercise their beliefs' and attitudes.},
author = {Abelson, Robert P.},
doi = {10.1111/j.1468-5914.1986.tb00078.x},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Abelson1986.pdf:pdf},
issn = {14685914},
journal = {Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour},
number = {3},
pages = {223--250},
title = {{Beliefs Are Like Possessions}},
volume = {16},
year = {1986}
}
@article{Hulsizer2004,
author = {Hulsizer, Michael R. and Munro, Geoffrey D. and Fagerlin, Angela and Taylor, Stuart P.},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Hulsizer et al. (2004).pdf:pdf},
journal = {Journal of Applied Social Psychology},
number = {5},
pages = {1048--1074},
title = {{Molding the Past: Biased Assimilation of Historical Information '}},
volume = {34},
year = {2004}
}
@misc{KerlerMeyer2017,
author = {Kerler, Wolfgang and Meyer-F{\"{u}}nffinger, Arne},
booktitle = {br.de},
month = {aug},
title = {{Spitzenkandidaten im Visier von "Fake News"}},
url = {http://www.br.de/bundestagswahl/spitzenkandidaten-visier-fakenews-100.html},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Kiousis2001,
author = {Kiousis, Spiro},
doi = {10.1207/S15327825MCS0404},
journal = {Mass Communication and Society},
number = {4},
pages = {381--403},
title = {{Public Trust or Mistrust? Perceptions of Media Credibility in the Information Age}},
volume = {4},
year = {2001}
}
@article{HoustonFazio1989,
author = {Houston, David A. and Fazio, Russell H.},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Houston {\&} Fazio (1989).pdf:pdf},
journal = {Social Cognition},
number = {1},
pages = {51--66},
title = {{Biased Processing as a Function of Attitude Accessibility}},
volume = {7},
year = {1989}
}
@article{KuklinskiHurley1994,
author = {Kuklinski, James H. and Hurley, Norman L.},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/KuklinskiHurley1994.pdf:pdf},
journal = {The Journal of Politics},
number = {3},
pages = {729--751},
title = {{On Hearing and Interpreting Political Messages : A Cautionary Tale of Citizen Cue-Taking}},
volume = {56},
year = {1994}
}
@techreport{Saengerlaub2017b,
author = {S{\"{a}}ngerlaub, Alexander},
keywords = {conservatism,fake news,liberalism,survey},
mendeley-tags = {conservatism,fake news,liberalism,survey},
title = {{Verzerrte Realit{\"{a}}ten}},
year = {2017}
}
@book{MariettaBarker2019,
address = {Oxford},
author = {Marietta, Morgan and Barker, David C.},
publisher = {Oxford University Press},
title = {{One Nation, Two Realities: Dueling Facts in American Democracy. Oxford University Press, 2019.}},
year = {2019}
}
@techreport{ARDInfratest2017b,
author = {{ARD/Infratest Dimap}},
title = {{ARD DeutschlandTREND Juli 2017}},
url = {https://www.infratest-dimap.de/umfragen-analysen/bundesweit/ard-deutschlandtrend/2017/juli/},
year = {2017}
}
@article{AnspachCarlson2018,
author = {Anspach, Nicolas M. and Carlson, Taylor N.},
doi = {10.1007/s11109-018-9515-z},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Anspach {\&} Carlson (2018).pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1110901895},
issn = {0190-9320},
journal = {Political Behavior},
keywords = {10,1007,9-018-9515-z,Misinformation,Motivated reasoning,Opinion leadership,Political communication,Social media,article,authorized users,contains supplementary material,doi,electronic supplementary material the,https,leadership,misinformation,motivated reasoning,online version of this,opinion,org,political communication,s1110,social media,which is available to},
title = {{What to Believe? Social Media Commentary and Belief in Misinformation}},
url = {http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11109-018-9515-z},
year = {2018}
}
@book{Berinsky2009,
author = {Berinsky, Adam J},
publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
title = {{In time of war: Understanding American public opinion from World War II to Iraq}},
year = {2009}
}
@article{Munro1997,
author = {Munro, Geoffrey D. and Ditto, Peter H.},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Munro {\&} Ditto (1997).pdf:pdf},
journal = {Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin},
title = {{Biased Assimilation, Attitude Polarization, and Affect in Reactions to Stereotype-Relevant Scientific Information}},
year = {1997}
}
@article{Bisgaard2015,
author = {Bisgaard, Martin},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Bisgaard - 2015 - Bias Will Find a Way Economic Perceptions, Attributions of Blame, and Partisan-Motivated Reasoning during Crisis.pdf:pdf},
journal = {The Journal of Politics},
number = {3},
pages = {849--860},
title = {{Bias Will Find a Way: Economic Perceptions, Attributions of Blame, and Partisan-Motivated Reasoning during Crisis}},
volume = {77},
year = {2015}
}
@article{McCrightDunlap2012,
abstract = {We examine political polarization over climate change within the American public by analyzing data from 10 nationally representative Gallup Polls between 2001 and 2010. We find that liberals and Democrats are more likely to report beliefs consistent with the scientific consensus and express personal concern about global warming than are conservatives and Republicans. Further, the effects of educational attainment and self-reported understanding on global warming beliefs and concern are positive for liberals and Democrats, but are weaker or negative for conservatives and Republicans. Lastly, significant ideological and partisan polarization has occurred on the issue of climate change over the past decade.},
author = {Dunlap, Riley E and McCright, Aaron M},
doi = {10.1111/j.1533-8525.2008.00127.x},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/McCright {\&} Dunlap (2012).pdf:pdf},
journal = {The Sociological Quarterly},
pages = {155--194},
title = {{The Politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public's views of Global Warming 2001-2010}},
volume = {52},
year = {2001}
}
@article{DelVicarioetal2016,
abstract = {SignificanceThe wide availability of user-provided content in online social media facilitates the aggregation of people around common interests, worldviews, and narratives. However, the World Wide Web is a fruitful environment for the massive diffusion of unverified rumors. In this work, using a massive quantitative analysis of Facebook, we show that information related to distinct narratives--conspiracy theories and scientific news--generates homogeneous and polarized communities (i.e., echo chambers) having similar information consumption patterns. Then, we derive a data-driven percolation model of rumor spreading that demonstrates that homogeneity and polarization are the main determinants for predicting cascades size. The wide availability of user-provided content in online social media facilitates the aggregation of people around common interests, worldviews, and narratives. However, the World Wide Web (WWW) also allows for the rapid dissemination of unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories that often elicit rapid, large, but naive social responses such as the recent case of Jade Helm 15--where a simple military exercise turned out to be perceived as the beginning of a new civil war in the United States. In this work, we address the determinants governing misinformation spreading through a thorough quantitative analysis. In particular, we focus on how Facebook users consume information related to two distinct narratives: scientific and conspiracy news. We find that, although consumers of scientific and conspiracy stories present similar consumption patterns with respect to content, cascade dynamics differ. Selective exposure to content is the primary driver of content diffusion and generates the formation of homogeneous clusters, i.e., "echo chambers." Indeed, homogeneity appears to be the primary driver for the diffusion of contents and each echo chamber has its own cascade dynamics. Finally, we introduce a data-driven percolation model mimicking rumor spreading and we show that homogeneity and polarization are the main determinants for predicting cascades size.},
author = {{Del Vicario}, Michela and Bessi, Alessandro and Zollo, Fabiana and Petroni, Fabio and Scala, Antonio and Caldarelli, Guido and Stanley, H. Eugene and Quattrociocchi, Walter},
doi = {10.1073/pnas.1517441113},
issn = {0027-8424},
journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
keywords = {facebook,fake news,filter bubbles,misinformation},
mendeley-tags = {facebook,fake news,filter bubbles,misinformation},
number = {3},
pmid = {24889601},
title = {{The spreading of misinformation online}},
volume = {113},
year = {2016}
}
@article{Spinney2017,
author = {Spinney, L.},
journal = {Nature News},
keywords = {Fake News},
mendeley-tags = {Fake News},
pages = {168},
title = {{The Shared Past That Wasn't}},
volume = {543},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Kunda1990,
author = {Kunda, Ziva},
doi = {10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480},
journal = {Psychological Bulletin},
number = {3},
pages = {480--498},
title = {{The Case for Motivated Reasoning}},
volume = {108},
year = {1990}
}
@article{Landrumetal2017,
author = {Landrum, Asheley R. and Lull, Robert B. and Akin, Heather and Hasell, Ariel and Jamieson, Kathleen Hall},
doi = {10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.015},
issn = {00100277},
journal = {Cognition},
pages = {1--12},
publisher = {Elsevier B.V.},
title = {{Processing the papal encyclical through perceptual filters: Pope Francis, identity-protective cognition, and climate change concern}},
url = {http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010027717301324},
volume = {166},
year = {2017}
}
@book{Hovlandetal1969,
address = {New Haven, CT},
author = {Hovland, Carl Iver and Janis, I. L. and Kelley, H.},
edition = {3rd},
publisher = {Yale University Press},
title = {{Communication and persuasion. Psychological studies of opinion change}},
year = {1959}
}
@article{CortinaRottinghaus2017,
author = {Cortina, Jeronimo and Rottinghaus, Brandon},
journal = {American Review of Politics},
number = {1},
pages = {2--29},
title = {{Does Partisanship Stop at Scandal's Edge? Partisan Resiliency and the Survival of Political Scandal}},
volume = {36},
year = {2017}
}
@techreport{Civey2017,
author = {Civey},
title = {{Das wichtigste Thema}},
url = {https://civey.com/umfragen/wichtigstes-thema-bundestagswahl/},
year = {2017}
}
@article{PennycookRand2019a,
abstract = {Why do people believe blatantly inaccurate news headlines (“fake news”)? Do we use our reasoning abilities to convince ourselves that statements that align with our ideology are true, or does reasoning allow us to effectively differentiate fake from real regardless of political ideology? Here we test these competing accounts in two studies (total N = 3446 Mechanical Turk workers) by using the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) as a measure of the propensity to engage in analytical reasoning. We find that CRT performance is negatively correlated with the perceived accuracy of fake news, and positively correlated with the ability to discern fake news from real news – even for headlines that align with individuals' political ideology. Moreover, overall discernment was actually better for ideologically aligned headlines than for misaligned headlines. Finally, a headline-level analysis finds that CRT is negatively correlated with perceived accuracy of relatively implausible (primarily fake) headlines, and positively correlated with perceived accuracy of relatively plausible (primarily real) headlines. In contrast, the correlation between CRT and perceived accuracy is unrelated to how closely the headline aligns with the participant's ideology. Thus, we conclude that analytic thinking is used to assess the plausibility of headlines, regardless of whether the stories are consistent or inconsistent with one's political ideology. Our findings therefore suggest that susceptibility to fake news is driven more by lazy thinking than it is by partisan bias per se – a finding that opens potential avenues for fighting fake news.},
author = {Pennycook, Gordon and Rand, David G},
doi = {10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Pennycook {\&} Rand (2018b).pdf:pdf},
issn = {18737838},
journal = {Cognition},
keywords = {Analytic thinking,Cognitive reflection test,Dual process theory,Fake news,Intuition,News media,Social media},
number = {September 2017},
pages = {39--50},
publisher = {Elsevier},
title = {{Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning}},
volume = {188},
year = {2019}
}
@article{Seidman2013,
abstract = {The present study examined the relationship between the Big Five and the use of Facebook to fulfill belonging and self-presentational needs. One hundred and eighty four undergraduates completed a survey assessing personality and Facebook behaviors and motivations. High agreeableness and neuroticism were the best predictors of belongingness-related behaviors and motivations. Extraversion was associated with more frequent use of Facebook to communicate with others. Self-presentational behaviors and motivations were best predicted by low conscientiousness and high neuroticism. Results suggest that conscientious individuals are cautious in their online self-presentation. Neuroticism, agreeableness, and extraversion were positively associated with the tendency to express one's actual self. Neuroticism was positively associated with the expression of ideal and hidden self-aspects. The motivation to express these self-aspects mediated the relationship between neuroticism and self-disclosure. {\textcopyright} 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.},
author = {Seidman, Gwendolyn},
doi = {10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.009},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Seidman2013.pdf:pdf},
issn = {01918869},
journal = {Personality and Individual Differences},
keywords = {Big Five,Facebook,Need to belong,Self-presentation,Social networking site},
number = {3},
pages = {402--407},
publisher = {Elsevier Ltd},
title = {{Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influences social media use and motivations}},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.009},
volume = {54},
year = {2013}
}
@article{Tsfati2001,
author = {Tsfati, Yariv},
doi = {10.1093/ijpor/13.4.433},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Tsfati (2001).pdf:pdf},
issn = {09542892},
journal = {International Journal of Public Opinion Research},
number = {4},
pages = {433--441},
title = {{Why do people trust media pre-election polls? Evidence from the Israeli 1996 elections}},
url = {http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/4/433},
volume = {13},
year = {2001}
}
@article{Singer2006,
abstract = {In their coverage of the 2004 political campaign, editors of Web sites affil- iated with major U.S. newspapers continued to emphasize their role as providers of credible information. But they moved toward seeing that information less as an end product than as a basis for user engagement, participation, and personalization. This study, which builds on a similar study conducted after the 2000 election, suggests journalists may be tak- ing steps toward reshaping their gatekeeping role to accommodate the interactive nature of the Internet. Journalists},
author = {Singer, Jane B.},
doi = {10.1177/107769900608300203},
isbn = {10776990},
issn = {1077-6990},
journal = {Journalism {\&} Mass Communication Quarterly},
number = {2},
pages = {265--280},
pmid = {22288422},
title = {{Stepping Back from the Gate: Online Newspaper Editors and the Co-Production of Content in Campaign 2004}},
url = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/107769900608300203},
volume = {83},
year = {2006}
}
@article{Trillingetal2017,
abstract = {2015, June). . Paper presented at the , Buenos Aires, Argentinia.},
author = {Trilling, Damian and Tolochko, Petro and Burscher, Bj{\"{o}}rn},
doi = {10.1177/1077699016654682},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Trilling et al. (2017).pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1535-1386 (Electronic) 0021-9355 (Linking)},
issn = {2161430X},
journal = {Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly},
keywords = {news dissemination,news sharing,news values,online news,social network sites},
number = {1},
pages = {38--60},
pmid = {20720142},
title = {{From Newsworthiness to Shareworthiness: How to Predict News Sharing Based on Article Characteristics}},
volume = {94},
year = {2017}
}
@misc{Gensing2017,
author = {Gensing, Patrick},
booktitle = {tagesschau.de},
month = {sep},
title = {{Die gro{\ss}e Fake News gab es nicht}},
url = {http://faktenfinder.tagesschau.de/inland/bilanz-wahlkampf-btw-101.html},
year = {2017}
}
@unpublished{Guessetal2018,
author = {Guess, Andrew and Nyhan, Brendan and Reifler, Jason},
title = {{Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U. S. presidential campaign}},
year = {2018}
}
@article{Grinberg2019,
author = {Grinberg, Nir and Joseph, Kenneth and Friedland, Lisa and Swire-thompson, Briony and Lazer, David},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Grinberg et al. (2016).pdf:pdf},
number = {January},
pages = {374--378},
title = {{Fake news on Twitter during the 2016}},
volume = {378},
year = {2019}
}
@article{Guessetal2019,
author = {Guess, Andrew and Nagler, Jonathan and Tucker, Joshua},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Guess et al. (2019).pdf:pdf},
number = {January},
pages = {1--9},
title = {{Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook}},
year = {2019}
}
@misc{SilvermanSinger2016,
author = {Silverman, Craig and Singer-Vine, Jeremy},
booktitle = {Buzzfeed},
month = {dec},
title = {{Most Americans Who See Fake News Believe It, New Survey Says}},
url = {https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/fake-news-survey?utm{\_}term=.caBkRN49p{\#}.hlKlWxKP9},
year = {2016}
}
@article{Lordetal1979,
author = {Lord, Charles G. and Ross, Lee and Lepper, Mark R.},
doi = {10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098},
journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
keywords = {beliefs,experiment,motivated reasoning,science trust},
mendeley-tags = {beliefs,experiment,motivated reasoning,science trust},
number = {11},
pages = {2089--2109},
title = {{Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence}},
volume = {37},
year = {1979}
}
@book{Campbelletal1960,
address = {New York},
author = {Campbell, Angus and Converse, Philip E. and Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E.},
publisher = {John Wiley {\&} Sons},
title = {{The American Voter}},
year = {1960}
}
@article{Taberetal2009,
abstract = {We report the results of an experiment designed to replicate and extend recent findings on motivated political reasoning. In particular, we are interested in disconfirmation biases---the tendency to counter-argue or discount information with which one disagrees---in the processing of political arguments on policy issues. Our experiment examines 8 issues, including some of local relevance and some of national relevance, and manipulates the presentation format of the policy arguments. We find strong support for our basic disconfirmation hypothesis: people seem unable to ignore their prior beliefs when processing arguments or evidence. We also find that this bias is moderated by political sophistication and strength of prior attitude. We do not find, however, that argument type matters, suggesting that motivated biases are quite robust to changes in argument format. Finally, we find strong support for the polarization of attitudes as a consequence of biased processing.},
author = {Taber, Charles S. and Cann, Damon and Kucsova, Simona},
doi = {10.1007/s11109-008-9075-8},
issn = {1573-6687},
journal = {Political Behavior},
keywords = {Confirmation bias,Disconfirmation bias,Experiment,Motivated reasoning,Polarization},
mendeley-tags = {Confirmation bias,Disconfirmation bias,Experiment,Motivated reasoning,Polarization},
number = {2},
pages = {137--155},
title = {{The Motivated Processing of Political Arguments}},
volume = {31},
year = {2009}
}
@article{TsfatiCappella2003,
author = {Tsfati, Yariv and Cappella, Joseph N.},
doi = {10.1177/0093650203253371},
journal = {Communication Research},
number = {5},
pages = {504--529},
title = {{Do People Watch What They Do Not Trust? Exploring the Association Between News Media Skepticism and Exposure}},
volume = {30},
year = {2003}
}
@article{Tsfati2006,
abstract = {In recent decades, audience options for current affairs information have been multiplying. Globalization and media segmentation present citizens with a variety of news outlets for political information in addition to those offered by the main- stream communication channels, which once dominated every nation state. In this article, survey data gathered in Israel (N = 1,122) are analyzed to examine the asso- ciation between mainstream media skepticism and exposure to sectorial and extra- national news media. Findings show that skepticism toward the mainstream news media is indeed related to sectorial and extranational news consumption; however, it is not related to consumption of such nonmainstream media exclusively. Results are discussed in light of theories of the public sphere.},
author = {Tsfati, Yariv and Peri, Yoram},
doi = {10.1207/s15327825mcs0902},
issn = {1520-5436},
journal = {Mass Communication {\&} Society},
keywords = {Alternative media,Mainstream media,Media trust},
mendeley-tags = {Alternative media,Mainstream media,Media trust},
number = {January 2015},
pages = {165--187},
title = {{Mainstream media skepticism and exposure to sectorial and extranational news media: The case of Israel}},
url = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327825mcs0902{\_}3},
volume = {9},
year = {2006}
}
@article{GerberGreen1999,
abstract = {Do people assimilate new information in an efficient and unbiased mannerthat is, do they update prior beliefs in accordance with Bayes' rule? Or are they selective in the way that they gather and absorb new information? Although many classic studies in political science and psychology contend that people resist discordant information, more recent research has tended to call the selective perception hypothesis into question. We synthesize the literatures on biased assimilation and belief polarization using a formal model that encompasses both Bayesian and biased learning. The analysis reveals (a) the conditions under which these phenomena may be consistent with Bayesian learning, (b) the methodological inadequacy of certain research designs that fail to control for preferences or prior information, and (c) the limited support that exists for the more extreme variants of the selective perception hypothesis.},
author = {Gerber, Alan and Green, Donald},
doi = {10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.189},
isbn = {1094-2939},
issn = {1094-2939},
journal = {Annual Review of Political Science},
keywords = {Bayesian modelling,Motivated reasoning,Selection bias,Selective Exposure,bayes,bias,cognition,learning,public opinion,rule},
mendeley-tags = {Bayesian modelling,Motivated reasoning,Selection bias,Selective Exposure},
pages = {189--210},
pmid = {5366760},
title = {{Misperceptions About Perceptual Bias}},
volume = {2},
year = {1999}
}
@article{Kim2017,
abstract = {The rise of “fake news” has become a major concern for social media platforms and their users with many researchers working on approaches for fact checking of articles. Article fact-checking usually appears after a fake article has been widely read, so it has only limited effects. We examine the effectiveness of three different mechanisms for news source ratings that can be applied to news articles when they are initially published: expert article rating (where expert reviewers fact-check past articles, which are aggregated to provide a source rating), user article rating (where users rate past articles, which are aggregated to provide a source rating), and user source rating (where users rate the sources directly). We conducted an experiment with 590 social media users and found that all forms of rating influenced the user's belief in the articles, with different rating mechanisms having varying levels of impact. Notably, expert article ratings and user article ratings have stronger effects than do user source ratings for low-rated sources, which are the usual culprits responsible for spreading disinformation. A user's belief in an article, in turn, influenced the extent to which users would engage with the article (e.g., read, like, comment and share). In addition to these effects, we also found confirmation bias to be rampant; users were more likely to believe — and engage with — articles that aligned with their beliefs.},
author = {Kim, Antino and Moravec, Patricia and Dennis, Alan R},
pages = {1--38},
title = {{Behind the Stars: The Effects of News Source Ratings on Fake News in Social Media}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Lord2009,
author = {Lord, Charles G. and Taylor, Cheryl A.},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Lord {\&} Taylor (2009).pdf:pdf},
pages = {827--841},
title = {{Biased Assimilation: Effects of Assumptions and Expectations on the Interpretation of New Evidence}},
volume = {5},
year = {2009}
}
@article{Gaskelletal2004,
abstract = {Public opposition to genetically modified (GM) food and crops is widely interpreted as the result of the public's misperception of the risks. With scientific assessment pointing to no unique risks from GM crops and foods, a strategy of accurate risk communication from trusted sources has been advocated. This is based on the assumption that the benefits of GM crops and foods are self-evident. Informed by the interpretation of some qualitative interviews with lay people, we use data from the Eurobarometer survey on biotechnology to explore the hypothesis that it is not so much the perception of risks as the absence of benefits that is the basis of the widespread rejection of GM foods and crops by the European public. Some respondents perceive both risks and benefits, and may be trading off these attributes along the lines of a rational choice model. However, for others, one attribute?benefit?appears to dominate their judgments: the lexicographic heuristic. For these respondents, their perception of risk is of limited importance in the formation of attitudes toward GM food and crops. The implication is that the absence of perceived benefits from GM foods and crops calls into question the relevance of risk communication strategies for bringing about change in public opinion.},
author = {George, Gaskell and Nick, Allum and Wolfgang, Wagner and Nicole, Kronberger and Helge, Torgersen and Juergen, Hampel and Julie, Bardes},
doi = {10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00421.x},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Gaskell et al (2004).pdf:pdf},
issn = {0272-4332},
journal = {Risk Analysis},
keywords = {Biotechnology,decision theory,risk communication,risk perception},
number = {1},
pages = {185--194},
title = {{GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception}},
volume = {24},
year = {2004}
}
@article{Nickerson1998,
author = {Nickerson, Raymond S},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Nickerson (1998).pdf:pdf},
number = {2},
pages = {175--220},
title = {{Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises}},
volume = {2},
year = {1998}
}
@article{MutzPemantle2015,
author = {Mutz, Diana C. and Pemantle, Robin},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Mutz {\&} Pemantle (2015).pdf:pdf},
journal = {Journal of Experimental Political Science},
pages = {192--215},
title = {{Standards for Experimental Research: Encouraging a Better Understanding of Experimental Methods}},
volume = {2},
year = {2015}
}
@article{JohnsonKaye2010,
author = {Johnson, Thomas J. and Kaye, Barbara K.},
doi = {10.1177/0002764210376311},
isbn = {0002764210},
journal = {American Behavioral Scientist},
number = {1},
pages = {57 --77},
title = {{Still Cruising and Believing? An Analysis of Online Credibility Across Three Presidential Campaigns}},
volume = {54},
year = {2010}
}
@article{Roberts2010,
author = {Roberts, Chris},
doi = {10.1177/0002764210376310},
isbn = {0002764210},
journal = {American Behavioral Scientist},
keywords = {1996,421,and confused,and has led to,construct with a literature,contradictory,credibility is a long-studied,journalism,message credibility,messenger credibility,p,plentiful,scale verification,scores of operationalizations designed,self,that is},
number = {1},
title = {{Correlations Among Variables in Message and Messenger Credibility Scales}},
volume = {54},
year = {2010}
}
@misc{Locker2017,
author = {Locker, Theresa},
booktitle = {Motherboard},
title = {{Welche deutsche Nachrichtenseite verbreitet die meisten Falschmeldungen auf Facebook?}},
url = {https://motherboard.vice.com/de/article/9k3wvv/welche-deutsche-nachrichtenseite-verbreitet-die-meisten-falschmeldungen-auf-facebook},
year = {2017}
}
@unpublished{Friedland2017,
author = {Friedland, Lisa and Joseph, Kenny and Grinberg, Nir and Lazer, David},
keywords = {Fake News,Twitter,Voter registration},
mendeley-tags = {Fake News,Twitter,Voter registration},
title = {{Case study of a fake news pipeline}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Liebes2000,
abstract = {Trust in serious journalism is based on our belief in the professionalism of journalistic practice. We expect television{\^{a}}€™s evening news to select the most significant events of the day and tell them in a fair and accurate manner. Whereas academic research agrees that {\^{a}}€{\oe}news value{\^{a}}€ or {\^{a}}€{\oe}newsworthiness{\^{a}}€ should be the guiding principle for selectivity, the principle is rarely spelled out in detail. Occasional attempts to infer these values empirically from what gets published or from what{\^{a}}€™s left {\^{a}}€{\oe}on the floor{\^{a}}€ conceal the process of negotiation and disagreement that goes on in the newsroom and between professional journalists and the interests of the channel{\^{a}}€™s private or public owners. The case study presented here uses inside information that emerged during the course of a public debate following the broadcasting of a news item on Israel{\^{a}}€™s Public Television featuring football fans at a victory celebration welcoming Prime Minister Netanyahu with racist shouts. The analysis demonstrates that the same event may evoke several competing frames and thus may be included or dropped, or appear at various spots in the lineup for different reasons. The paper raises the question of whether the authority of the news might not be enhanced on occasion by sharing competing frames with viewers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Political Communication is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)},
author = {Liebes, Tamar},
doi = {10.1080/105846000414296},
isbn = {10584609},
issn = {10917675},
journal = {Political Communication},
keywords = {News editing,News framing,News value,Newsworthiness,Television news,Trust,Watchdog journalism},
number = {3},
pages = {295--305},
title = {{Inside a News Item: A Dispute Over Framing}},
volume = {17},
year = {2000}
}
@incollection{MackieQueller2000,
address = {New York, NY},
author = {Mackie, Diane M. and Queller, Sarah},
booktitle = {Attitudes, Behavior, and Social Context: The Role of Norms and Group Membership},
editor = {Terry, Deborah J. and Hogg, Michael A.},
publisher = {Psychology Press},
title = {{The Impact of Group Membership on Persuasion: Revisiting "Who Says What to Whom With What Effect?"}},
year = {2000}
}
@article{Schulman1968,
author = {Schulman, Gary I.},
doi = {10.1177/107769906804500111},
journal = {Journalism Quarterly},
keywords = {Attitudes,Opinion change,Persuasion},
mendeley-tags = {Attitudes,Opinion change,Persuasion},
number = {1},
pages = {86--90},
title = {{The Popularity of Viewpoints and Resistance to Attitude Change}},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107769906804500111},
volume = {45},
year = {1968}
}
@article{Soroka2006,
abstract = {There is a growing body of work suggesting that responses to positive and negative information are asymmetric— that negative information has a much greater impact on individuals' attitudes than does positive information. This paper explores these asymmetries in mass media responsiveness to positive and negative economic shifts and in public responsiveness to both the economy itself and economic news coverage. Using time-series analyses of U.K. media and public opinion, strong evidence is found of asymmetry. The dynamic is discussed as it applies to political com- munications and policymaking and more generally to public responsiveness in representative democracies.},
author = {Soroka, Stuart N.},
doi = {10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00413.x},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Soroka (2016).pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1468-2508},
issn = {00223816},
journal = {Journal of Politics},
number = {2},
pages = {372--385},
title = {{Good news and bad news: Asymmetric responses to economic information}},
volume = {68},
year = {2006}
}
@unpublished{Neudertetal2017b,
author = {Neudert, Lisa-Maria and Howard, Philip N. and Kollanyi, Bence},
pages = {1--6},
title = {{Junk News and Bots during the German Parliamentary Election: What are German Voters Sharing over Twitter?}},
year = {2017}
}
@techreport{Gu2017,
author = {Gu, Lion and Kropotov, Vladimir and Yarochkin, Fyodor},
keywords = {Fake News},
mendeley-tags = {Fake News},
title = {{The Fake News Machine - How Propagandists Abuse the Internet and Manipulate the Public}},
url = {http://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/online-economy-fake-news/},
year = {2017}
}
@techreport{Tuckeretal2018,
author = {Tucker, Joshua A. and Guess, Andrew and Barber{\'{a}}, Pablo and Vaccari, Cristian and Siegel, Alexandra and Sanovich, Sergey and Stukal, Denis and Nyhan, Brendan},
title = {{Social Media, Political Polarization, and Political Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific Literature}},
year = {2018}
}
@book{Berelsonetal1954,
address = {Chicago},
author = {Berelson, Bernard and Lazarsfeld, Paul Felix and McPhee, William},
publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
title = {{Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Election}},
year = {1954}
}
@article{Cooper1998,
author = {Cooper, Thomas W.},
doi = {10.1207/s15327728jmme1302},
isbn = {0253207193},
issn = {0890-0523},
journal = {Journal of Mass Media Ethics},
keywords = {Media ethics,Media trust},
mendeley-tags = {Media ethics,Media trust},
number = {2},
pages = {71--92},
title = {{New technology effects inventory: Forty leading ethical issues}},
volume = {13},
year = {1998}
}
@article{Murphy2019,
abstract = {The current study examined false memories in the week preceding the 2018 Irish abortion referendum. Participants (N = 3,140) viewed six news stories concerning campaign events—two fabricated and four authentic. Almost half of the sample reported a false memory for at least one fabricated event, with more than one third of participants reporting a specific memory of the event. “Yes” voters (those in favor of legalizing abortion) were more likely than “no” voters to “remember” a fabricated scandal regarding the campaign to vote “no,” and “no” voters were more likely than “yes” voters to “remember” a fabricated scandal regarding the campaign to vote “yes.” This difference was particularly strong for voters of low cognitive ability. A subsequent warning about possible misinformation slightly reduced rates of false memories but did not eliminate these effects. This study suggests that voters in a real-world political campaign are most susceptible to forming false memories for fake news that aligns with their beliefs, in particular if they have low cognitive ability.},
author = {Murphy, Gillian and Loftus, Elizabeth F. and Grady, Rebecca Hofstein and Levine, Linda J. and Greene, Ciara M.},
doi = {10.1177/0956797619864887},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Murphyetal2019.pdf:pdf},
issn = {14679280},
journal = {Psychological Science},
keywords = {bias,fake news,false memory,misinformation,open data,open materials,politics},
number = {10},
pages = {1449--1459},
title = {{False Memories for Fake News During Ireland's Abortion Referendum}},
volume = {30},
year = {2019}
}
@article{Aronow2016,
author = {Aronow, Peter M. and {Benjamin T. Miller}},
doi = {10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00043-X},
isbn = {0140-6736},
issn = {1474547X},
journal = {The Lancet},
keywords = {Misbeliefs,Misinformation},
mendeley-tags = {Misbeliefs,Misinformation},
number = {10015},
pages = {223},
publisher = {World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd/Inc/BV. All rights reserved.},
title = {{Policy misperceptions and support for gun control legislation Firearms}},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00043-X},
volume = {387},
year = {2016}
}
@article{Henkel2011,
abstract = {Five experiments explored how source reliability influences people's tendency to rate statements as more credible when they were encountered earlier (the truth effect). Undergraduates read statements from one reliable source and one unreliable source. Statements read multiple times were perceived as more valid and were more often correctly identified on a general knowledge test than statements read once or not at all. This occurred at varying retention intervals whether the statements originated from a reliable or unreliable source, when people had little memory for the statements themselves or their source, and when the discrediting information about the sources came either before or after reading the facts. While repetition aided recognition and source accuracy, both were unaffected by the reliability of the source. Consistent with the source monitoring framework, familiarity may create an illusion of truth for statements when people lack source-specifying cues, especially cues regarding the reliability of the source. {\textcopyright} 2011 Elsevier Inc.},
author = {Henkel, Linda A. and Mattson, Mark E.},
doi = {10.1016/j.concog.2011.08.018},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/HenkelMattson2011.pdf:pdf},
issn = {10538100},
journal = {Consciousness and Cognition},
keywords = {General knowledge,Processing fluency,Source credibility,Source monitoring,Truth effect,Truth judgments},
number = {4},
pages = {1705--1721},
publisher = {Elsevier Inc.},
title = {{Reading is believing: The truth effect and source credibility}},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.08.018},
volume = {20},
year = {2011}
}
@article{AllcottGentzkow2017,
author = {Allcott, Hunt and Gentzkow, Matthew},
doi = {10.1257/jep.31.2.211},
journal = {Journal of Economic Perspectives},
number = {2},
pages = {211--236},
title = {{Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election}},
volume = {31},
year = {2017}
}
@inproceedings{Anetal2011,
author = {An, Jisun and Cha, Meeyoung and Gummadi, Krishna and Crowcroft, Jon},
booktitle = {Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Anetal2011.pdf:pdf},
pages = {18--25},
title = {{Media Landscape in Twitter: A World of New Conventions and Political Diversity}},
year = {2011}
}
@techreport{NyhanReifler2012,
address = {Washington, D.C.},
author = {Nyhan, Brendan and Reifler, Jason},
booktitle = {Media Policy Initiative Research Paper},
institution = {New America Foundation},
title = {{Misinformation and Fact-checking: Research Findings from Social Science}},
year = {2012}
}
@article{FlanaginMetzger2007,
author = {Flanagin, Andrew J. and Metzger, Miriam J},
doi = {10.1177/1461444807075015},
journal = {new media {\&} society},
number = {2},
pages = {319--342},
title = {{The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information}},
volume = {9},
year = {2007}
}
@misc{Allan2017,
author = {Allan, Richard},
booktitle = {Facebook Newsroom},
title = {{Update on German Elections}},
url = {https://de.newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/09/update-zu-den-wahlen/},
urldate = {2017-09-27},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Kahanetal2011,
author = {Kahan, Dan M. and Jenkins‐Smith, Hank and Braman, Donald},
journal = {Journal of Risk Research},
number = {2},
title = {{Cultural cognition of scientific consensus}},
volume = {14},
year = {2011}
}
@article{Rojecki2016,
abstract = {The World Wide Web has changed the dynamics of information transmission and agenda-setting. Facts mingle with half-truths and untruths to create factitious informational blends (FIBs) that drive speculative politics. We specify an information environment that mirrors and contributes to a polarized political system and develop a methodology that measures the interaction of the two. We do so by examining the evolution of two comparable claims during the 2004 presidential campaign in three streams of data: (1) web pages, (2) Google searches, and (3) media coverage. We find that the web is not sufficient alone for spreading misinformation, but it leads the agenda for traditional media. We find no evidence for equality of influence in network actors.},
author = {Rojecki, Andrew and Meraz, Sharon},
doi = {10.1177/1461444814535724},
isbn = {1461-4448, 1461-7315},
issn = {1461-4448},
journal = {New Media {\&} Society},
number = {1},
pages = {25--43},
title = {{Rumors and factitious informational blends: The role of the web in speculative politics}},
url = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444814535724},
volume = {18},
year = {2016}
}
@article{WashburnSkitka2017,
abstract = {We tested whether conservatives and liberals are similarly or differentially likely to deny scientific claims that conflict with their preferred conclusions. Participants were randomly assigned to read about a study with correct results that were either consistent or inconsistent with their attitude about one of several issues (e.g., carbon emissions). Participants were asked to interpret numerical results and decide what the study concluded. After being informed of the correct interpretation, participants rated how much they agreed with, found knowledgeable, and trusted the researchers' correct interpretation. Both liberals and conservatives engaged in motivated interpretation of study results and denied the correct interpretation of those results when that interpretation conflicted with their attitudes. Our study suggests that the same motivational processes underlie differences in the political priorities of those on the left and the right.},
author = {Washburn, Anthony N. and Skitka, Linda J.},
doi = {10.1177/1948550617731500},
issn = {1948-5506},
journal = {Social Psychological and Personality Science},
keywords = {and researchers have made,attitudes,authors,bold,claims,many journalists,motivated reasoning,political psychology,primarily a problem on,science denial,suggesting science denial is,the},
title = {{Science Denial Across the Political Divide}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{SchenkerGentleman2001,
author = {Schenker, Nathaniel and Gentleman, Jane F},
doi = {10.1198/000313001317097960},
journal = {The American Statistician},
number = {3},
pages = {182--186},
title = {{On Judging the Significance of Differences by Examining the Overlap Between Confidence Intervals}},
volume = {55},
year = {2001}
}
@incollection{Dholakia1987,
address = {Provo, UT},
author = {Dholakia, Ruby Roy},
booktitle = {Advances in Consumer Research Volume 14},
editor = {Wallendorf, Melanie and Anderson, Paul},
pages = {426--430},
publisher = {Association for Consumer Research},
title = {{Source Credibility Effects: a Test of Behavioral Persistence}},
url = {http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/6731/volumes/v14/NA-14},
year = {1987}
}
@article{JensenThomsen2014,
abstract = {Measuring citizens' political knowledge is important for understanding public opinion formation. In view of the increasing popularity of Web surveys, this paper examines the limitations of this interviewing facility when measuring factual political knowledge. We show that Web surveys contain a source of measurement error as respondents can " Google " the correct answers. This cheating activity is our principal concern. Past efforts are extended by: (1) offering a self-reported estimate of the share of Googling cheaters, (2) showing that the positive effect of education on factual political knowledge is most probably underestimated when cheating occurs, and (3) showing that self-reported cheating activity is inversely related to actual response time. In the concluding section, we discuss the implications of these results and the extent to which cheating can be reduced. The empirical analyses are based on a Danish Web sample from 2012 (N = 1,509).},
author = {Jensen, Carsten and Thomsen, Jens Peter Fr{\o}lund},
doi = {10.1007/s11135-013-9960-z},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Jensen {\&} Thomsen (2014).pdf:pdf},
issn = {15737845},
journal = {Quality and Quantity},
keywords = {Political knowledge,Response time limits,Self-reported cheating,The education effect,Web surveys},
number = {6},
pages = {3343--3354},
title = {{Self-reported cheating in web surveys on political knowledge}},
volume = {48},
year = {2014}
}
@article{HeideLim2015,
abstract = {When seeking information, Internet users often find multiple communicators co-presenting and expressing their opinions. This study examined how people judge message senders' credibility in a multi-source environment based on system-generated cues, the consensus among multiple sources, and the effect of receiver's familiarity with the online platform. Moreover, this research examined the mediating role of source credibility in attitude change in an online consumer-review community. Results indicated that users familiar with a platform were more likely to use system-generated cues for their judgment of credibility along with consensus heuristics, and the combination of heuristics influenced attitude through credibility. However, unfamiliar users relied on consensus heuristics but not system-generated cues. These findings and their theoretical implications are discussed.},
author = {{Van Der Heide}, Brandon and Lim, Young Shin},
doi = {10.1177/0093650214565915},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/HeideLim2015.pdf:pdf},
issn = {15523810},
journal = {Communication Research},
keywords = {computer-mediated communication,eCommerce,heuristics,online credibility judgments,online social influence,persuasion},
number = {5},
pages = {672--693},
title = {{On the Conditional Cueing of Credibility Heuristics: The Case of Online Influence}},
volume = {43},
year = {2016}
}
@article{Kahan2013b,
abstract = {Decision scientists have identified various plausible sources of ideological polarization over climate change, gun violence, national security, and like issues that turn on empirical evidence. This paper describes a study of three of them: the predominance of heuristic-driven information processing by members of the public; ideologically motivated reasoning; and the cognitive-style correlates of political conservativism. The study generated both observational and experimental data inconsistent with the hypothesis that political conservatism is distinctively associated with either unreflective thinking or motivated reasoning. Conservatives did no better or worse than liberals on the Cognitive Reflection Test (Frederick, 2005), an objective measure of information-processing dispositions associated with cognitive biases. In addition, the study found that ideologically motivated reasoning is not a consequence of over-reliance on heuristic or intuitive forms of reasoning generally. On the contrary, subjects who scored highest in cognitive reflection were the most likely to display ideologically motivated cognition. These findings corroborated an alternative hypothesis, which identifies ideologically motivated cognition as a form of information processing that promotes individuals' interests in forming and maintaining beliefs that signify their loyalty to important affinity groups. The paper discusses the practical significance of these findings, including the need to develop science communication strategies that shield policy-relevant facts from the influences that turn them into divisive symbols of political identity.},
author = {Kahan, Dan M.},
journal = {Judgment and Decision Making},
number = {4},
pages = {407--424},
title = {{Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection}},
volume = {8},
year = {2013}
}
@article{Dowlingetal2019,
author = {Dowling, Conor M and Henderson, Michael and Miller, Michael G},
doi = {10.1177/1532673X19832543},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Dowling et al. (2019).pdf:pdf},
journal = {American Politics Research},
keywords = {learning,opinion change,political knowledge,public opinion,survey experiment},
number = {0},
pages = {1--24},
title = {{Knowledge Persists, Opinions Drift: Learning and Opinion Change in a Three-Wave Panel Experiment}},
volume = {00},
year = {2019}
}
@article{DittoLopez1992,
author = {Ditto, Peter H. and Lopez, David F},
journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
number = {4},
pages = {568--584},
title = {{Motivated Skepticism: Use of Differential Decision Criteria for Preferred and Nonpreferred Conclusions}},
volume = {63},
year = {1992}
}
@article{Shi2017,
author = {Shi, Feng and Shi, Yongren and Dokshin, Fedor A. and Evans, James A. and Macy, Michael W.},
doi = {10.1038/s41562-017-0079},
issn = {2397-3374},
journal = {Nature Human Behaviour},
keywords = {E-commerce,Networks,Observational},
mendeley-tags = {E-commerce,Networks,Observational},
number = {april},
pages = {0079},
publisher = {Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature.},
title = {{Millions of online book co-purchases reveal partisan differences in the consumption of science}},
url = {http://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0079},
volume = {1},
year = {2017}
}
@unpublished{Swire-Thompson2019,
author = {Swire-Thompson, Briony and Ecker, Ullrich U.K.H and Lewandowsky, Stephan and Berinsky, Adam},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Swireetal2019.pdf:pdf},
keywords = {belief updating,fact checking,misinformation,source credibility,the continued influence effect,the prevalence of misinformation},
pages = {1--29},
title = {{They Might be a Liar but They're My Liar: Source Evaluation and the Prevalence of Misinformation}},
year = {2019}
}
@article{Gilead2018,
abstract = {Past research has investigated deliberate mental acts that allow people to remain entrenched in their convictions. The purpose of the current investigation was to examine whether opinion-confirmation processes can occur involuntarily. We conducted experiments wherein participants made speeded judgments of the grammatical accuracy of statements pertaining to various matters of opinion, and subsequently rated their agreement with those statements. The results show that participants more readily verify the grammaticality of a statement when it corresponds to their opinion. These findings may help explain why opinions are sometimes change resistant, in showing that acceptance (rejection) of confirmatory (contradictory) opinions can occur involuntarily. We discuss possible applications of the paradigm described herein.},
author = {Gilead, Michael and Sela, Moran and Maril, Anat},
doi = {10.1177/1948550618762300},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Desktop/Neue Literatur/Gilead et al. (2018).pdf:pdf},
issn = {19485514},
journal = {Social Psychological and Personality Science},
keywords = {attitudes,automatic processes,language,motivated cognition,social cognition},
title = {{That's My Truth: Evidence for Involuntary Opinion Confirmation}},
year = {2018}
}
@article{NyhanReifler2010,
abstract = {An extensive literature addresses citizen ignorance, but very little research focuses on misperceptions. Can these false or unsubstantiated beliefs about politics be corrected? Previous studies have not tested the efficacy of corrections in a realistic format. We conducted four experiments in which subjects read mock news articles that included either a misleading claim from a politician, or a misleading claim and a correction. Results indicate that corrections frequently fail to reduce misperceptions among the targeted ideological group. We also document several instances of a “backfire” effect in which corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question.},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
arxivId = {arXiv:1011.1669v3},
author = {Nyhan, Brendan and Reifler, Jason},
doi = {10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2},
eprint = {arXiv:1011.1669v3},
isbn = {0190-9320},
issn = {01909320},
journal = {Political Behavior},
keywords = {Correction,Experiment,Knowledge,Misbelief,Misinformation},
mendeley-tags = {Correction,Experiment,Knowledge,Misbelief,Misinformation},
number = {2},
pages = {303--330},
pmid = {50107988},
title = {{When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions}},
volume = {32},
year = {2010}
}
@article{West1994,
author = {West, Mark Douglas},
journal = {Journalism Quarterly},
keywords = {Credibility measurement,Source Credibility},
mendeley-tags = {Credibility measurement,Source Credibility},
number = {1},
title = {{Validating a Scale for the Measurement of Credibility: A Covariance Structure Approach}},
volume = {71},
year = {1994}
}
@article{Bullock2009,
author = {Bullock, John G},
doi = {10.1017/S0022381609090914},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Bullock (2009).pdf:pdf},
journal = {The Journal of Politics},
number = {3},
pages = {1109--1124},
title = {{Partisan Bias and the Bayesian Ideal in the Study of Public Opinion}},
volume = {71},
year = {2009}
}
@misc{Sydell2017,
author = {Sydell, Laura},
booktitle = {Colorado Public Radio},
month = {nov},
title = {{We Tracked Down A Fake-News Creator In The Suburbs. Here's What We Learned}},
url = {http://www.cpr.org/news/npr-story/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Westen2006,
abstract = {Research on political judgment and decision-making has converged with decades of research in clinical and social psychology suggesting the ubiquity of emotion-biased motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning is a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives. To what extent motivated reasoning engages neural circuits involved in "cold" reasoning and conscious emotion regulation (e.g., suppression) is, however, unknown. We used functional neuroimaging to study the neural responses of 30 committed partisans during the U.S. Presidential election of 2004. We presented subjects with reasoning tasks involving judgments about information threatening to their own candidate, the opposing candidate, or neutral control targets. Motivated reasoning was associated with activations of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, insular cortex, and lateral orbital cortex. As predicted, motivated reasoning was not associated with neural activity in regions previously linked to cold reasoning tasks and conscious (explicit) emotion regulation. The findings provide the first neuroimaging evidence for phenomena variously described as motivated reasoning, implicit emotion regulation, and psychological defense. They suggest that motivated reasoning is qualitatively distinct from reasoning when people do not have a strong emotional stake in the conclusions reached.},
author = {Westen, Drew and Blagov, Pavel S. and Harenski, Keith and Kilts, Clint and Hamann, Stephan},
doi = {10.1162/jocn.2006.18.11.1947},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Westen et al. (2006).pdf:pdf},
isbn = {0898-929X},
issn = {0898929X},
journal = {Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience},
number = {11},
pages = {1947--1958},
pmid = {17069484},
title = {{Neural bases of motivated reasoning: An fMRI study of emotional constraints on partisan political judgment in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election}},
volume = {18},
year = {2006}
}
@article{Conoveretal1987,
author = {Conover, Pamela Johnston and Feldman, Stanley and Knight, Kathleen},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Conoveretal1987.pdf:pdf},
journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
number = {3},
pages = {559--583},
title = {{The Personal and Political Underpinnings of Economic Forecasts}},
volume = {31},
year = {1987}
}
@article{Kunda1987,
abstract = {The results of four studies suggest that people tend to generate and evaluate causal theories in a self-serving manner. They generate theories that view their own attributes as more predictive of desirable outcomes, and they are reluctant to believe in theories relating their own attributes to undesirable events. As a consequence, people tend to hold theories that are consistent with the optimistic belief that good things will happen to them and bad things will not. I argue that these self-serving biases are best explained as resulting from cognitive processes guided by motivation because they do not occur in the absence of motivational pressures. {\textcopyright} 1987 American Psychological Association.},
author = {Kunda, Ziva},
doi = {10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.636},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Kunda (1987).pdf:pdf},
issn = {00223514},
journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
number = {4},
pages = {636--647},
title = {{Motivated Inference: Self-Serving Generation and Evaluation of Causal Theories}},
volume = {53},
year = {1987}
}
@article{Nielsen2017,
author = {Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis and Graves, Lucas},
number = {October},
pages = {1--8},
title = {{“News you don't believe”: Audience perspectives on fake news}},
url = {https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2017-10/Nielsen{\%}2526Graves{\_}factsheet{\_}1710v3{\_}FINAL{\_}download.pdf},
year = {2017}
}
@article{TaberLodge2006,
author = {Taber, Charles S. and Lodge, Milton},
doi = {10.1080/08913811.2012.711019},
issn = {0891-3811},
journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
number = {3},
pages = {157--184},
title = {{Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs}},
volume = {50},
year = {2006}
}
@incollection{Metzgeretal2003,
address = {Mahwah, NJ},
author = {Metzger, Miriam J. and Flanagin, Andrew J. and Eyal, Keren and Lemus, Daisy R. and McCann, Robert},
booktitle = {Communication Yearbook 27},
editor = {Kalbfleisch, Pamela},
pages = {293--335},
publisher = {Lawrence Erlbaum.},
title = {{Credibility in the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment}},
year = {2003}
}
@article{Ladd2009,
author = {Ladd, Jonathan McDonald and Lenz, Gabriel S.},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Ladd {\&} Lenz (2009).pdf:pdf},
journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
number = {2},
pages = {394--410},
title = {{Exploiting a Rare Communication Shift to Document the Persuasive Power of the News Media}},
volume = {53},
year = {2009}
}
@article{BullockLenz2019,
author = {Bullock, John G. and Lenz, Gabriel},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Bullock {\&} Lenz (2019).pdf:pdf},
journal = {Annual Review of Political Science},
pages = {325--42},
title = {{Partisan Bias in Surveys}},
volume = {22},
year = {2019}
}
@article{Tappinetal2019,
author = {Tappin, Ben M. and Pennycook, Gordon and Rand, David},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Tappinetal2019.pdf:pdf},
journal = {Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences},
keywords = {causal inference,causal inferences of pmr,corresponding author,politically motivated reasoning,study design},
title = {{Thinking clearly about causal inferences of politically motivated reasoning: Why paradigmatic study designs often prevent causal inference}},
year = {2019}
}
@article{Knoblochetal2015,
abstract = {Before the 2013 German federal election, 121 participants completed a 2-session online study (which paralleled a U.S. study before the 2012 presidential election). They browsed online search results pertaining to 4 political issues while selective exposure was unobtrusively measured. In a 4 × 2 × 2 (topic × issue stance × source credibility) within-subjects design, the search results indicated either issue support or opposition, associated with low- or high-credibility sources. Hypotheses were derived from cognitive dissonance, approach-avoidance, and motivated cognition models. Findings yielded a confirmation bias. Attitude-consistent exposure uniformly reinforced attitudes; attitude-discrepant exposure uniformly weakened attitudes. Analyses with parallel U.S. data showed a stronger confirmation bias in the United States than in Germany.},
author = {Knobloch-Westerwick, Silvia and Mothes, Cornelia and Johnson, Benjamin K. and Westerwick, Axel and Donsbach, Wolfgang},
doi = {10.1111/jcom.12154},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Knobloch-Westerwick (2015).pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1460-2466(Electronic);0021-9916(Print)},
issn = {14602466},
journal = {Journal of Communication},
keywords = {Attitudes,Comparative Studies,Confirmation Bias,Online Search,Politics,Selective Exposure,Source Credibility},
number = {3},
pages = {489--511},
title = {{Political Online Information Searching in Germany and the United States: Confirmation Bias, Source Credibility, and Attitude Impacts}},
volume = {65},
year = {2015}
}
@misc{Parkinson2016,
author = {Parkinson, Hannah Jane},
booktitle = {The Guardian},
keywords = {Fake News,Social Media},
mendeley-tags = {Fake News,Social Media},
month = {nov},
title = {{Click and elect: how fake news helped Donald Trump win a real election}},
url = {https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/14/fake-news-donald-trump-election-alt-right-social-media-tech-companies},
year = {2016}
}
@article{Knobloch-Westerwick2017,
author = {Knobloch-Westerwick, Silvia and Mothes, Cornelia and Polavin, Nick},
doi = {10.1177/0093650217719596},
journal = {Communication Research},
pages = {1--21},
title = {{Confirmation Bias, Ingroup Bias, and Negativity Bias in Selective Exposure to Political Information}},
year = {2017}
}
@incollection{Kahan2016b,
address = {New York, NY},
author = {Kahan, Dan M.},
booktitle = {Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences},
editor = {Scott, Robert and Kosslyn, Stephen},
pages = {1--15},
publisher = {John Wiley {\&} Sons, Inc.},
title = {{The Politically Motivated Reasoning Paradigm, Part 2: Unanswered Questions}},
year = {2016}
}
@article{Barberaetal2015a,
author = {Barber{\'{a}}, Pablo and Wang, Ning and Bonneau, Richard and Jost, John T and Nagler, Jonathan and Tucker, Joshua and Gonz{\'{a}}lez-Bail{\'{o}}n, Sandra},
doi = {10.7910/DVN/WCXK3Z.Funding},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Barber{\'{a}} et al. (2015).PDF:PDF},
journal = {PLoS ONE},
number = {11},
pages = {1--15},
title = {{The Critical Periphery in the Growth of Social Protests}},
volume = {10},
year = {2015}
}
@unpublished{Petersenetal2018,
author = {Petersen, Michael Bang and Osmundsen, Mathias and Arceneaux, Kevin},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Petersenetal2018.pdf:pdf},
title = {{A “Need for Chaos” and the Sharing of Hostile Political Rumors in Advanced Democracies}},
year = {2018}
}
@article{Kahanetal2017b,
abstract = {Why does public conflict over societal risks persist in the face of compelling and widely accessible scientific evidence? We conducted an experiment to probe two alternative answers: the “Science Comprehension Thesis” (SCT), which identifies defects in the public's knowledge and reasoning capacities as the source of such controversies; and the “Identity-protective Cognition Thesis” (ICT) which treats cultural conflict as disabling the faculties that members of the public use to make sense of decision-relevant science. In our experiment, we presented subjects with a difficult problem that turned on their ability to draw valid causal inferences from empirical data. As expected, subjects highest in Numeracy — a measure of the ability and disposition to make use of quantitative information — did substantially better than less numerate ones when the data were presented as results from a study of a new skin-rash treatment. Also as expected, subjects' responses became politically polarized — and even less accurate — when the same data were presented as results from the study of a gun-control ban. But contrary to the prediction of SCT, such polarization did not abate among subjects highest in Numeracy; instead, it increased. This outcome supported ICT, which predicted that more Numerate subjects would use their quantitative-reasoning capacity selectively to conform their interpretation of the data to the result most consistent with their political outlooks. We discuss the theoretical and practical significance of these findings.},
author = {Kahan, Dan M. and Peters, Ellen and Dawson, Erica Cantrell and Slovic, Paul},
doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2319992},
isbn = {1469-1825 (Electronic)$\backslash$n0140-525X (Linking)},
issn = {1556-5068},
journal = {Behavioural Public Policy},
keywords = {Cultural cognition,Experiment,Identity protection,Motivated reasoning},
mendeley-tags = {Cultural cognition,Experiment,Identity protection,Motivated reasoning},
number = {1},
pages = {54--86},
pmid = {21447233},
series = {Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 307},
title = {{Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government}},
volume = {1},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Flanagin2018,
author = {Flanagin, Andrew J},
doi = {10.1111/hcre.12116},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Flanagin (2017).pdf:pdf},
keywords = {10,1111,12116,been conceptualized as the,doi,hcre,interpersonal communication,mass communication,mass communication has traditionally,one-way transmis-,online social influence,social influence,technological convergence},
number = {April},
pages = {450--463},
title = {{Online Social Influence and the Convergence of Mass and Interpersonal Communication}},
volume = {43},
year = {2018}
}
@misc{Wagner2017a,
author = {Wagner, Kurt},
booktitle = {recode},
title = {{Facebook found a new way to identify spam and false news articles in your News Feed}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Nightingale2017,
author = {Nightingale, Sophie J and Wade, Kimberley A and Watson, Derrick G},
doi = {10.1186/s41235-017-0067-2},
journal = {Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications},
keywords = {Digital image forensics,Photo manipulation,Psychology and law,Real-world scenes,Visual processing,digital image forensics,photo manipulation,psychology and law,real-world scenes,visual processing},
number = {30},
publisher = {Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications},
title = {{Can people identify original and manipulated photos of real-world scenes?}},
volume = {2},
year = {2017}
}
@book{Neumanetal1992,
address = {Chicago},
author = {Neuman, W. Russell and Just, Marion R. and Crigler, Ann N.},
publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
title = {{Common Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning}},
year = {1992}
}
@book{CarpiniKeeter1996,
address = {New Haven},
author = {{Delli Carpini}, Michael X. and Keeter, Scott},
publisher = {Yale University Press},
title = {{What Americans know about politics and why it matters}},
year = {1996}
}
@article{Paper2017,
author = {Paper, Full},
pages = {240--261},
title = {{SC | M}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Barabas2014,
abstract = {Political knowledge is a central concept in the study of public opinion and political behavior. Yet what the field collectively believes about this construct is based on dozens of studies using different indicators of knowledge. We identify two theoretically relevant dimensions: a temporal dimension that corresponds to the time when a fact was established and a topical dimension that relates to whether the fact is policy-specific or general. The resulting typology yields four types of knowledge questions. In an analysis of more than 300 knowledge items from late in the first decade of the 2000s, we examine whether classic findings regarding the predictors of knowledge withstand differences across types of questions. In the case of education and the mass media, the mechanisms for becoming informed operate differently across question types. However, differences in the levels of knowledge between men and women are robust, reinforcing the importance of including gender-relevant items in knowledge batteries.},
author = {Barabas, Jason and Jerit, Jennifer and Pollock, William and Rainey, Carlisle},
doi = {10.1017/S0003055414000392},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Barabasetal2014.pdf:pdf},
issn = {15375943},
journal = {American Political Science Review},
number = {4},
pages = {840--855},
title = {{The question(s) of political knowledge}},
volume = {108},
year = {2014}
}
@article{Diasetal2020,
author = {Dias, Nicholas and Pennycook, Gordon and Rand, David G.},
doi = {10.37016/mr-2020-001},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Diasetal2020.pdf:pdf},
journal = {Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review},
number = {1},
pages = {1--12},
title = {{Emphasizing publishers does not effectively reduce susceptibility to misinformation on social media}},
volume = {1},
year = {2020}
}
@incollection{LodgeTaber2000,
address = {Cambridge},
author = {Lodge, Milton and Taber, Charles S.},
booktitle = {Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality},
editor = {Lupia, Arthur and McCubbins, Mathew D. and Popkin, Samuel L.},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
title = {{Three Steps toward a Theory of Motivated Reasoning}},
year = {2000}
}
@unpublished{LeeperSlothuus2015,
author = {Leeper, Thomas J. and Slothuus, Rune},
title = {{Can Citizens Be Framed? How Information, Not Emphasis, Changes Opinions}},
year = {2015}
}
@misc{Albright2016,
author = {Albright, Jonathan},
booktitle = {Medium},
keywords = {Fake News,Misinformation},
mendeley-tags = {Fake News,Misinformation},
month = {nov},
title = {{The {\#}Election2016 Micro-Propaganda Machine}},
url = {https://medium.com/@d1gi/the-election2016-micro-propaganda-machine-383449cc1fba https://medium.com/@d1gi/why-banning-fake-news-sites-from-ad-networks-wont-work-3995da452e70},
year = {2016}
}
@article{NyhanReifler2016,
author = {Nyhan, Brendan and Reifler, Jason},
doi = {10.1080/17457289.2018.1465061},
journal = {Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties},
pages = {1--23},
title = {{The roles of information deficits and identity threat in the prevalence of misperceptions}},
year = {2018}
}
@book{Popkin1991,
address = {Chicago},
author = {Popkin, Samuel L.},
publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
title = {{The reasoning voter: communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns}},
year = {1991}
}
@inproceedings{Kwaketal2010,
author = {Kwak, Haewoon and Lee, Changhyun and Park, Hosung and Moon, Sue},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Kwaketal2010.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {9781605587998},
keywords = {copyright is held by,degree of,homophily,influential,information diffusion,online social network,pagerank,reciprocity,retweet,separation,the international world wide,twitter,web conference com-},
title = {{What is Twitter , a Social Network or a News Media? Categories and Subject Descriptors}},
year = {2010}
}
@article{Pentina2014,
abstract = {Using the conceptual lenses of information overload and sense making, this paper investigates the process of contemporary news consumption based on the qualitative content analysis of 112 interview transcripts from a diverse cross-section of US news consumers. We offer theoretical clarification of factors influencing news consumption and the role of social media in devising strategies for addressing information overload in order to facilitate news sense-making and the resulting civic knowledge formation. We provide news organizations with suggestions for appropriately designing offerings to compete in the era of new media and offer directions for future research in the domains of news, product, and brand information consumption. {\textcopyright} 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
author = {Pentina, Iryna and Tarafdar, Monideepa},
doi = {10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.045},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/PentinaTarafdar2014.pdf:pdf},
issn = {07475632},
journal = {Computers in Human Behavior},
keywords = {Information overload,News consumption,Sense making,Social media},
pages = {211--223},
title = {{From "information" to "knowing": Exploring the role of social media in contemporary news consumption}},
volume = {35},
year = {2014}
}
@article{Pornpitakpan2004,
author = {Pornpitakpan, Chanthika},
journal = {Journal of Applied Social Psychology},
number = {2},
pages = {243--281},
title = {{The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility : A Critical Review of Five Decades' Evidence}},
volume = {34},
year = {2004}
}
@article{Moslehetal2019,
author = {Mosleh, Mohsen and Pennycook, Gordon and Rand, David},
doi = {10.31234/OSF.IO/ZEBP9},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Mosleh et al. (2019).pdf:pdf},
journal = {PsyArXiv Working Paper},
pages = {1--9},
title = {{Self-reported willingness to share political news articles in online surveys correlates with actual sharing on Twitter}},
year = {2019}
}
@article{FlanaginMetzger2014,
abstract = {The rich research heritage on source credibility is fundamentally linked to processes of political communication and the provision of political information. Networked digital technologies, however, have recently complicated the assessment of source credibility by modifying people's ability to determine source expertise and trustworthiness, which are the foundations upon which credibility evaluations have traditionally rested. This chapter explores source credibility in online contexts by examining the credibility of digital versus traditional channels, the nature of political information conveyed by social media, and the dynamics of political information online. In addition, this chapter considers related research concerns, including the link between credibility and selective exposure, the potential for group polarization, and the role of social media in seeking and delivering credible political information. These concerns suggest challenges and opportunities as information consumers navigate the contemporary information environment in search of the knowledge to make them informed members of a politically engaged citizenry.},
author = {Flanagin, Andrew and Metzger, Miriam J. and Kenski, Kate and Jamieson, Kathleen Hall},
doi = {10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.013.65},
isbn = {9780199793471},
journal = {The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication},
keywords = {communicators to persuade others,credibility to political communication,digital media,effective public,heart of political communication,is in many ways,more important than,of,persuasion lies at the,polarization,political communication,selective exposure,social media,source credibility,the capacity of political,the importance of source,their ability to formulate,though not mutually exclusive},
number = {September},
pages = {1--15},
title = {{Digital Media and Perceptions of Source Credibility in Political Communication}},
url = {http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199793471-e-65},
year = {2014}
}
@book{LupiaMcCubbins1998,
address = {Cambridge, U.K; New York},
author = {Lupia, Arthur and McCubbins, Mathew D.},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
title = {{The democratic dilemma: can citizens learn what they need to know?}},
year = {1998}
}
@article{Mellon2013,
abstract = {Google search data have several major advantages over traditional survey data. First, the high costs of running frequent surveys mean that most survey questions are only asked occasionally making comparisons over time difficult. By contrast, Google Trends provides information on search trends measured weekly. Second, there are many countries where surveys are only conducted sporadically, whereas Google search data are available anywhere in the world where sufficient numbers of people use its search engine. The Google Trends website allows researchers to download data for almost all countries at no cost and to download time series of any search term's popularity over time (provided enough people have searched for it). For these reasons, Google Trends is an attractive data source for social scientists. {\textcopyright} 2013 American Political Science Association.},
author = {Mellon, Jonathan},
doi = {10.1017/S1049096513000279},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Mellon2013.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1049096513000},
issn = {10490965},
journal = {PS - Political Science and Politics},
number = {2},
pages = {280--290},
title = {{Where and when can we use google trends to measure issue salience?}},
volume = {46},
year = {2013}
}
@article{Wlezien2000,
abstract = {Salience is an important concept throughout political science. Traditionally, the word has been used to designate the importance of issues, particularly for voters. To measure salience in political behavior research, scholars often rely on people's responses to the survey question that asks about the "most important problem" (MIP) facing the nation. In this manuscript, I argue that the measure confuses at least two different characteristics of salience: The importance of issues and the degree to which issues are a problem. It even may be that issues and problems are themselves fundamentally different things, one relating to public policy and the other to conditions. Herein, I conceptualize the different characteristics of MIP. I then undertake an empirical analysis of MIP responses over time in the US. It shows that most of the variation in MIP responses reflects variation in problem status. To assess whether these responses still capture meaningful information about the variation in importance over time, I turn to an analysis of opinion-policy dynamics, specifically on the defense spending domain. It shows that changes in MIP mentions do not structure public responsiveness to policy or policymaker responsiveness to public preferences themselves. Based on the results, it appears that the political importance of defense has remained largely unchanged over time. The same may be true in other domains. Regardless, relying on MIP responses as indicators of issue importance of any domain is fundamentally flawed. The responses may tell us something about the "prominence" of issues, but we simply do not know. The implication is clear: We first need to decide what we want to measure and then design the instruments to measure it. {\textcopyright} 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.},
author = {Wlezien, Christopher},
doi = {10.1016/j.electstud.2005.01.009},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Wlezien2000.pdf:pdf},
issn = {02613794},
journal = {Electoral Studies},
number = {4},
pages = {555--579},
title = {{On the salience of political issues: The problem with 'most important problem'}},
volume = {24},
year = {2005}
}
@incollection{SandersonEcker2020,
author = {Sanderson, Jasmyne A. and Ecker, Ullrich K. H.},
booktitle = {Handbook of Learning from Multiple Representations and Perspective},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/SandersonEcker2020.pdf:pdf},
title = {{The Challenge of Misinformation and Ways to Reduce Its Impact}},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Faragoetal2019,
abstract = {In this research we aimed to explore the importance of partisanship behind the belief in wish-fulfilling political fake news. We tested the role of political orientation, partisanship, and conspiracy mentality in the acceptance of pro- and anti-government pipedream fake news. Using a representative survey (N = 1,000) and a student sample (N = 382) in Hungary, we found that partisanship predicted belief in political fake news more strongly than conspiracy mentality, and these connections were mediated by the perceived credibility of source (independent journalism vs. political propaganda) and economic sentiment. Our findings suggest that political bias can be more important in predicting acceptance of pipedream political fake news than conspiracy mentality.},
author = {Farag{\'{o}}, Laura and Kende, Anna and Krek{\'{o}}, P{\'{e}}ter},
doi = {10.1027/1864-9335/a000391},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Faragoetal2019.pdf:pdf},
issn = {21512590},
journal = {Social Psychology},
keywords = {conspiracy mentality,economic sentiment,fake news,partisanship,political orientation},
title = {{We only Believe in News That We Doctored Ourselves: The Connection between Partisanship and Political Fake News}},
year = {2019}
}
@article{BaumGroeling2008,
abstract = {Scholars of political communication have long examined newsworthiness by focusing on the news choices of media organizations (Lewin, 1947; White, 1950; Sigal, 1973; Gans, 1979). However, in recent years these traditional arbiters of the news have increasingly been joined or even supplanted in affecting the public agenda by “new media” competi-tors, including cable news, talk radio, and even amateur bloggers. The standards by which this new class of decision makers evaluates news are at best only partially explained by prior studies focused on professional journalists and organizations. In this study, we seek to correct this oversight by content analyzing five online news sources— including wire services, cable news, and political blog sites—in order to compare their news judgments in the months prior to, and immediately following, the 2006 midterm elec-tion. We collected all stories from Reuters'and AP's “top political news” sections. We then investigated whether a given story was also chosen to appear on each wire's top news page (indicating greater perceived newsworthiness than those that were not chosen) and compared the wires' editorial choices tothose of more partisan blogs (from the left: DailyKos.com; from the right: FreeRepublic.com) and cable outlets (FoxNews.com). We find evidence of greater partisan filtering for the latter three Web sources, and relatively greater reliance on traditional newsworthiness criteria for the news wires.},
author = {Baum, Matthew A. and Groeling, Tim},
doi = {10.1080/10584600802426965},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Baum {\&} Groeling (2008).pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1058460080},
issn = {10584609},
journal = {Political Communication},
number = {4},
pages = {345--365},
pmid = {35484161},
title = {{New media and the polarization of American political discourse}},
volume = {25},
year = {2008}
}
@article{Reedyetal2014,
abstract = {Objectives Voters develop not only different opinions about politics but also different sets of empirical beliefs. It is less clear how falsifiable beliefs take hold. In particular, it remains unclear as to whether news and campaign messages, moderated by political knowledge, drive the process, or whether deep-seated values principally sway voters' acceptance of factual claims. These contrasting views point to a set of testable hypotheses that we use to refine a model of ideologically-biased empirical belief generation, which we call “knowledge distortion.” Methods We conduct an analysis of survey data on three ballot measures in Washington State, testing hypothesized relationships between voters' empirical beliefs about political issues, news and campaign messages, political knowledge, political values, and partisanship, as well as vote choices on the ballot measures. Results Our analysis reveals that voters' values and partisanship had the strongest associations with distorted beliefs, which then influenced voting choices. Self-reported levels of exposure to media and campaign messages played a surprisingly limited role. Conclusion Our findings provide further evidence of politically motivated factual misperceptions on political issues, which have an independent effect on voters' ballot decisions. These misperceptions do not seem to be driven by news media and campaign messages, suggesting that citizens may be generating relevant empirical beliefs based on their underlying political values and ideology.},
author = {Reedy, Justin and Wells, Chris and Gastil, John},
doi = {10.1111/ssqu.12102},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Dropbox/PhD/Literatur/Reedy et al. (2014).pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1540-6237},
issn = {15406237},
journal = {Social Science Quarterly},
number = {5},
pages = {1399--1418},
title = {{How Voters Become Misinformed: An Investigation of the Emergence and Consequences of False Factual Beliefs}},
volume = {95},
year = {2014}
}
@article{Jost2017,
author = {Jost, John T.},
doi = {10.1111/pops.12407},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Jost - 2017 - Ideological Asymmetries and the Essence of Political Psychology.pdf:pdf},
issn = {0162895X},
journal = {Political Psychology},
keywords = {Meta-analysis,Motivated reasoning,Need for cognition,Political Ideology},
mendeley-tags = {Meta-analysis,Motivated reasoning,Need for cognition,Political Ideology},
number = {2},
pages = {416--417},
title = {{Ideological Asymmetries and the Essence of Political Psychology}},
volume = {38},
year = {2017}
}
@unpublished{Knudsenetal2017,
author = {Knudsen, Erik and Poul, Mikael and Hoem, Magnus},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Knudsen, Poul, Hoem - 2017 - What Makes a News Source Trustworthy A Conjoint Experiment of How Eight Different Factors Increase or Decre.pdf:pdf},
title = {{What Makes a News Source Trustworthy? A Conjoint Experiment of How Eight Different Factors Increase or Decrease Trust in a News Source}},
url = {https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318637112{\_}What{\_}Makes{\_}a{\_}News{\_}Source{\_}Trustworthy{\_}A{\_}Conjoint{\_}Experiment{\_}of{\_}How{\_}Eight{\_}Different{\_}Factors{\_}Increase{\_}or{\_}Decrease{\_}Trust{\_}in{\_}a{\_}News{\_}Source},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Radnitz2017,
abstract = {What are the origins of belief in conspiracy theories? The dominant approach to studying conspiracy theories links belief to social stresses or personality type, and does not take into account the situational and fluctuating nature of attitudes. In this study, a survey experiment, subjects are presented with a mock news article designed to induce conspiracy belief. Subjects are randomly assigned three manipulations hypothesized to heighten conspiracy perceptions: a prime to induce anxiety; information about the putative conspirator; and the number and identifiability of the victim(s). The results indicate that conspiratorial perceptions can emerge from both situational triggers and subtle contextual variables. Conspiracy beliefs emerge as ordinary people make judgments about the social and political world.},
author = {Radnitz, Scott and Underwood, Patrick},
doi = {10.1017/S0007123414000556},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Radnitz, Underwood - 2017 - Is Belief in Conspiracy Theories Pathological A Survey Experiment on the Cognitive Roots of Extreme Suspicio.pdf:pdf},
issn = {0007-1234},
journal = {British Journal of Political Science},
number = {1},
pages = {1--17},
title = {{Is Belief in Conspiracy Theories Pathological? A Survey Experiment on the Cognitive Roots of Extreme Suspicion}},
volume = {47},
year = {2017}
}
@article{BodeVraga2015,
abstract = {Research on social media and research on correcting misinformation are both growing areas in communication, but for the most part they have not found common ground. This study seeks to bridge these two areas, considering the role that social media may play in correcting misinformation. To do so, we test a new function of Facebook, which provides related links when people click on a link within Facebook. We show users a post containing misinformation, and then manipulate the related stories to either confirm, correct, or both confirm and correct the misinformation. Findings suggest that when related stories correct a post that includes misinformation, misperceptions are significantly reduced.},
author = {Bode, Leticia and Vraga, Emily K.},
doi = {10.1111/jcom.12166},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Bode, Vraga - 2015 - In Related News, That Was Wrong The Correction of Misinformation Through Related Stories Functionality in Social Me.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {0021-9916},
issn = {14602466},
journal = {Journal of Communication},
keywords = {AMT,Algorithms,Experiment,Facebook,GMOs,Health Communication,Misbeliefs,Misinformation,Pre-post attitude measurement,Social Media,Vaccines},
mendeley-tags = {AMT,Experiment,Facebook,Misbeliefs,Pre-post attitude measurement,Social Media},
number = {4},
pages = {619--638},
title = {{In Related News, That Was Wrong: The Correction of Misinformation Through Related Stories Functionality in Social Media}},
volume = {65},
year = {2015}
}
@article{Kahanetal2017a,
author = {Kahan, Dan M. and Jamieson, Kathleen Hall and Landrum, Asheley and Winneg, Kenneth},
doi = {10.1080/13669877.2016.1260631},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Kahan et al. - 2017 - Culturally antagonistic memes and the Zika virus an experimental test.pdf:pdf},
issn = {1366-9877},
journal = {Journal of Risk Research},
keywords = {Belief,Cultural cognition,Experiment,Heuristics,Identity protection,Misbelief,Risk perceptions},
mendeley-tags = {Belief,Cultural cognition,Experiment,Heuristics,Identity protection,Misbelief,Risk perceptions},
number = {1},
pages = {1--40},
publisher = {Routledge},
title = {{Culturally antagonistic memes and the Zika virus: an experimental test}},
url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13669877.2016.1260631},
volume = {20},
year = {2017}
}
@book{Hovlandetal1953,
address = {New Haven, CT},
author = {Hovland, Carl Iver and Janis, Irving Lester and Kelley, Harold H.},
publisher = {Yale University Press},
title = {{Communication and persuasion}},
year = {1953}
}
@article{AtheyImbens2017,
abstract = {In this review, we present econometric and statistical methods for analyzing randomized experiments. For basic experiments we stress randomization-based inference as opposed to sampling-based inference. In randomization-based inference, uncertainty in estimates arises naturally from the random assignment of the treatments, rather than from hypothesized sampling from a large population. We show how this perspective relates to regression analyses for randomized experiments. We discuss the analyses of stratified, paired, and clustered randomized experiments, and we stress the general efficiency gains from stratification. We also discuss complications in randomized experiments such as non-compliance. In the presence of non-compliance we contrast intention-to-treat analyses with instrumental variables analyses allowing for general treatment effect heterogeneity. We consider in detail estimation and inference for heterogeneous treatment effects in settings with (possibly many) covariates. These methods allow researchers to explore heterogeneity by identifying subpopulations with different treatment effects while maintaining the ability to construct valid confidence intervals. We also discuss optimal assignment to treatment based on covariates in such settings. Finally, we discuss estimation and inference in experiments in settings with interactions between units, both in general network settings and in settings where the population is partitioned into groups with all interactions contained within these groups.},
author = {Athey, Susan and Imbens, G.W.},
doi = {10.1016/bs.hefe.2016.10.003},
pages = {73--140},
title = {{The Econometrics of Randomized Experiments a}},
volume = {1},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Bailetal2020,
abstract = {There is widespread concern that Russia and other countries have launched social-media campaigns designed to increase political divisions in the United States. Though a growing number of studies analyze the strategy of such campaigns, it is not yet known how these efforts shaped the political attitudes and behaviors of Americans. We study this question using longitudinal data that describe the attitudes and online behaviors of 1,239 Republican and Democratic Twitter users from late 2017 merged with nonpublic data about the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) from Twitter. Using Bayesian regression tree models, we find no evidence that interaction with IRA accounts substantially impacted 6 distinctive measures of political attitudes and behaviors over a 1-mo period. We also find that interaction with IRA accounts were most common among respondents with strong ideological homophily within their Twitter network, high interest in politics, and high frequency of Twitter usage. Together, these findings suggest that Russian trolls might have failed to sow discord because they mostly interacted with those who were already highly polarized. We conclude by discussing several important limitations of our study—especially our inability to determine whether IRA accounts influenced the 2016 presidential election—as well as its implications for future research on social media influence campaigns, political polarization, and computational social science.},
author = {Bail, Christopher A. and Guay, Brian and Maloney, Emily and Combs, Aidan and {Sunshine Hillygus}, D. and Merhout, Friedolin and Freelon, Deen and Volfovsky, Alexander},
doi = {10.1073/pnas.1906420116},
issn = {10916490},
journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America},
keywords = {Bailetal2020,Computational social science,Misinformation,Political polarization,Social media},
mendeley-tags = {Bailetal2020},
number = {1},
pages = {243--250},
pmid = {31767743},
title = {{Assessing the Russian Internet Research Agency's impact on the political attitudes and behaviors of American Twitter users in late 2017}},
volume = {117},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Atheyetal2019,
abstract = {We propose generalized random forests, a method for nonparametric statistical estimation based on random forests (Breiman [Mach. Learn. 45 (2001) 5–32]) that can be used to fit any quantity of interest identified as the solution to a set of local moment equations. Following the literature on local maximum likelihood estimation, our method considers a weighted set of nearby training examples; however, instead of using classical kernel weighting functions that are prone to a strong curse of dimensionality, we use an adaptive weighting function derived from a forest designed to express heterogeneity in the specified quantity of interest. We propose a flexible, computationally efficient algorithm for growing generalized random forests, develop a large sample theory for our method showing that our estimates are consistent and asymptotically Gaussian and provide an estimator for their asymptotic variance that enables valid confidence intervals. We use our approach to develop new methods for three statistical tasks: nonparametric quantile regression, conditional average partial effect estimation and heterogeneous treatment effect estimation via instrumental variables. A software implementation, grf for R and C++, is available from CRAN.},
author = {Athey, Susan and Tibshirani, Julie and Wager, Stefan},
doi = {10.1214/18-AOS1709},
issn = {00905364},
journal = {Annals of Statistics},
keywords = {And phrases,Asymptotic theory,Causal inference,Instrumental variable},
number = {2},
pages = {1179--1203},
title = {{Generalized random forests}},
volume = {47},
year = {2019}
}
@article{Foggetal2001,
author = {Fogg, B J and Marshall, Jonathan and Laraki, Othman and Osipovich, Alex and Varma, Chris and Fang, Nicholas and Paul, Jyoti and Rangnekar, Akshay and Shon, John and Swani, Preeti and Treinen, Marissa and Hall, Cordura},
isbn = {1581133278},
journal = {SIGCHI'01},
keywords = {although some private,companies have created proprietary,exist,given the importance of,it is remarkable that,knowledge about,so few quantitative studies,web credibility},
number = {1},
pages = {61--68},
title = {{What Makes Web Sites Credible? A Report on a Large Quantitative Study CHI 2001}},
volume = {3},
year = {2001}
}
@article{IyengarHahn2009,
author = {Iyengar, Shanto and Hahn, Kyu S},
doi = {10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x},
file = {:Users/bernhardclemm/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Iyengar, Hahn - 2009 - Red Media , Blue Media Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use.pdf:pdf},
journal = {Journal of Communication},
keywords = {Experiment,Media bias,Polarization,Selective Exposure},
mendeley-tags = {Experiment,Media bias,Polarization,Selective Exposure},
pages = {19--39},
title = {{Red Media , Blue Media : Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use}},
volume = {59},
year = {2009}
}
@unpublished{GuessMunger2020,
abstract = {Digital literacy is receiving increased scholarly attention as a potential explanatory factor in the spread of online misinformation. As a concept, however, it remains surprisingly elusive, with little consensus on definitions or measures. Building on work in communication studies and sociology, we provide a unified framework of digital literacy for political scientists and introduce survey items to measure it. Using a novel purposive sampling approach, we then validate our measure against real-world benchmarks of ground truth. There exists substantial variation in levels of digital literacy in the population, which we also document is correlated with age and could confound observed relationships. However, this is obscured by researchers' reliance on online convenience samples that select for people with computer and internet skills. We discuss the implications of this sample selection bias for effect heterogeneity in studies of online media effects on political behavior. Click here for latest version.},
author = {Guess, Andrew Markus and Munger, Kevin},
doi = {10.31219/osf.io/3ncmk},
title = {{Digital Literacy and Online Political Behavior}},
year = {2020}
}
@unpublished{GuayJohnston2020,
author = {Guay, Brian and Johnston, Christopher},
title = {{Ideological Asymmetries and the Determinants of Politically Motivated Reasoning}},
year = {2020}
}
@unpublished{AtheyWager2019,
abstract = {We apply causal forests to a dataset derived from the National Study of Learning Mindsets, and consider resulting practical and conceptual challenges. In particular, we discuss how causal forests use estimated propensity scores to be more robust to confounding, and how they handle data with clustered errors.},
author = {Athey, Susan and Wager, Stefan},
pages = {1--15},
title = {{Estimating Treatment Effects with Causal Forests: An Application}},
year = {2019}
}
@article{WagerAthey2018,
author = {Wager, Stefan and Athey, Susan},
journal = {Journal of the American Statistical Association ISSN:},
number = {523},
title = {{Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forests}},
volume = {113},
year = {2018}
}
@article{Bramboretal2006,
author = {Brambor, Thomas and Clark, William Roberts and Golder, Matt},
doi = {10.1093/pan/mpi014},
journal = {Political Analysis (2006)},
pages = {63--82},
title = {{Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses}},
volume = {14},
year = {2006}
}
@article{FlanaginMetzger2000,
author = {Flanagin, By Andrew and Metzger, Miriam J},
doi = {10.1177/107769900007700304},
isbn = {9781450310482},
journal = {Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly},
number = {3},
pages = {515--540},
title = {{Perceptions of Internet Information Credibility}},
volume = {77},
year = {2000}
}
@article{Kuenzeletal2019,
abstract = {There is growing interest in estimating and analyzing heterogeneous treatment effects in experimental and observational studies. We describe a number of metaalgorithms that can take advantage of any supervised learning or regression method in machine learning and statistics to estimate the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) function. Metaalgorithms build on base algorithms—such as random forests (RFs), Bayesian additive regression trees (BARTs), or neural networks—to estimate the CATE, a function that the base algorithms are not designed to estimate directly. We introduce a metaalgorithm, the X-learner, that is provably efficient when the number of units in one treatment group is much larger than in the other and can exploit structural properties of the CATE function. For example, if the CATE function is linear and the response functions in treatment and control are Lipschitz-continuous, the X-learner can still achieve the parametric rate under regularity conditions. We then introduce versions of the X-learner that use RF and BART as base learners. In extensive simulation studies, the X-learner performs favorably, although none of the metalearners is uniformly the best. In two persuasion field experiments from political science, we demonstrate how our X-learner can be used to target treatment regimes and to shed light on underlying mechanisms. A software package is provided that implements our methods.},
author = {K{\"{u}}nzel, S{\"{o}}ren R. and Sekhon, Jasjeet S. and Bickel, Peter J. and Yu, Bin},
doi = {10.1073/pnas.1804597116},
eprint = {1706.03461},
issn = {10916490},
journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America},
keywords = {Observational studies,conditional average treatment effect,heterogeneous treatment effects,minimax optimality,randomized controlled trials},
number = {10},
pages = {4156--4165},
pmid = {30770453},
title = {{Metalearners for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects using machine learning}},
volume = {116},
year = {2019}
}
@article{Grimmeretal2017,
abstract = {Randomized experiments are increasingly used to study political phenomena because they can credibly estimate the average effect of a treatment on a population of interest. But political scientists are often interested in how effects vary across subpopulations-heterogeneous treatment effects-and how differences in the content of the treatment affects responses-the response to heterogeneous treatments. Several new methods have been introduced to estimate heterogeneous effects, but it is difficult to know if a method will perform well for a particular data set. Rather than using only one method, we show how an ensemble of methods-weighted averages of estimates from individual models increasingly used in machine learning-accurately measure heterogeneous effects. Building on a large literature on ensemble methods, we show how the weighting of methods can contribute to accurate estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects and demonstrate how pooling models lead to superior performance to individual methods across diverse problems. We apply the ensemble method to two experiments, illuminating how the ensemble method for heterogeneous treatment effects facilitates exploratory analysis of treatment effects.},
author = {Grimmer, Justin and Messing, Solomon and Westwood, Sean J.},
doi = {10.1017/pan.2017.15},
issn = {14764989},
journal = {Political Analysis},
number = {4},
pages = {413--434},
title = {{Estimating Heterogeneous Treatment Effects and the Effects of Heterogeneous Treatments with Ensemble Methods}},
volume = {25},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Gunther1992,
abstract = {Mass media credibility has been defined and studied largely as an attribute of message sources. This article argues that trust in media can be better understood as a relational variable—an audience response to media content. In addition, audience assessments of credibility are commonly explained as the result of each individual's skeptical disposition, either toward mass media in particular or as a general trait. The author dissents from this view as well, proposing that distrust is more likely to be a situational response, stemming from involvement with issues and groups. Using data from a national probability sample, the hypothesis was tested by analyzing the effect of numerous inde- pendent variables on respondent ratings of newspaper and televi- sion news coverage of social groups. As hypothesized, a respon- dent's own group identification proved to be the strongest predictor. The evidence was strengthened by replication across social groups, which provided built-in controls and demonstrated that an important part of the variance in trust of mass media news is within persons rather than between persons. Introduction},
author = {Gunther, Albert C.},
doi = {10.1086/269308},
issn = {0033362X},
journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
number = {2},
pages = {147},
title = {{Biased Press or Biased Public? Attitudes Toward Media Coverage of Social Groups}},
volume = {56},
year = {1992}
}
@misc{LauferHock2020,
author = {Laufer, Daniel and Hock, Alexej},
booktitle = {netzpolitik.org},
title = {{The network of fake foreign media}},
year = {2020}
}