Trump, Twitter, and truth judgments: The effects of “disputed” tags and political knowledge on the judged truthfulness of election misinformation

Abstract

Misinformation has sown distrust in the legitimacy of American elections. Nowhere has this been more concerning than in the 2020 U.S. presidential election wherein Donald Trump falsely declared that it was stolen through fraud. Although social media platforms attempted to dispute Trump’s false claims by attaching soft moderation tags to his posts, little is known about the effectiveness of this strategy. We experimentally tested the use of “disputed” tags on Trump’s Twitter posts as a means of curbing election misinformation. Trump voters with high political knowledge judged election misinformation as more truthful when Trump’s claims included Twitter’s disputed tags compared to a control condition. Although Biden voters were largely unaffected by these soft moderation tags, third-party and non-voters were slightly less likely to judge election misinformation as true. Finally, little to no evidence was found for meaningful changes in beliefs about election fraud or fairness. These findings raise questions about the effectiveness of soft moderation tags in disputing highly prevalent or widely spread misinformation.